Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bristol Water Bill [Lords],

Oxford Motor Services Bill [Lords],

Waltham and Cheshunt Gas Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Durham County Transport Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CERTIFICATES OF ORIGIN (SCANDINAVIAN PORTS).

Mr. RARER: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether certificates of origin are now required for all shipment of wood goods from Scandinavian ports to the British possessions; and, if so, whether, in order to save both trouble and expense which would be incurred by shipment of numerous small parcels, His Majesty's Government would be willing to accept a general undertaking from the different Scandinavian timber mills certifying that they are shipping only timber of Scandinavian origin?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Certificates of origin are not now required in connection with the German Reparation (Recovery) Act in this country for wood and timber consigned from Sweden or Norway. In other parts of the Empire the question does not at the moment arise in this connection, as the matter of legislation, on the lines of the Act referred to, is still under consideration. I may add, however, that in view of the prohibition of the import of German goods into
Australia, certificates of origin are required for all goods consigned to that Dominion from Scandinavia.

Mr. RARER: Why are they demanding certificates of origin at Liverpool for wood goods?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: This matter was considered only a few days ago. We have gone into it carefully and notices have been given.

WHISKY, EXPORT LICENSING DEPARTMENT.

Mr. RAPER: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade why the whisky export licensing Department is still maintained; and in what way the export of whisky affects the question of the control of maximum prices in the United Kingdom?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Export licensing in respect of whisky is administered by the small section of the Board of Trade which deals with export licences generally: there is no separate Department. So long as the price of whisky for domestic consumption is regulated it is desirable that export should be controlled, since otherwise the higher prices obtainable abroad might result in the domestic market being left short of supplies.

FARINA MILLS.

Mr. J. GARDINER: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the company formed to erect mills for the production of farina was promoted by the Government, by private individuals, or by both; what was the capital invested in the company; who were the individuals, and to what extent did they each advance part of the capital; how many mills were erected, and where; did they produce farina; if so, what quantity and at which of the mills; what did the mills cost; are they still in use; if sold or for sale, at what prices; are the private subscribers paid out; and, if so, when and on what terms?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As the answer to this question is somewhat long and detailed, I propose with my hon. Friend's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL HEPOBT.

The following is the answer:

The company was promoted by private individuals with Government support. £20,000 was the capital invested by the following persons:



£


Mr. H. W. Richards
8,000


Mr. D. L. Pattullo
5,999


Mr. H. Gunson 
3,000


Mr. A. E. Harris
3,000


Mr. C. W. Higgs
1



£20,000

No mills were erected, but four were acquired at King's Lynn, Boston, Monikie, and Hull.

The following two mills produced farina as under:



tons
cwts.
qrs.


King's Lynn
1,875
12
2


Boston
150
—
—

The cost of the mills with equipment amounted to £247,000. The mills at Boston have been purchased by certain farmers in that area and are again producing farina; the other mills are not in use at present. The Boston mills have been sold and the others are for sale on the best possible terms. Private subscribers were paid out in London at par.

COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS (FEES).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 49.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that in many foreign countries British commercial travellers have to pay high fees for permission to enter and transact business in these countries, while foreign commercial travellers pay nothing on entering this country; whether he will endeavour by diplomatic means to obtain reciprocal and fair treatment for British commercial travellers in those foreign countries; and whether, in the case of any, and, if so, which, of these foreign countries, we are prohibited by treaty engagements from imposing similar fees on foreign commercial travellers to those exacted in those countries from British commercial travellers?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am aware of the facts referred to by my hon. Friend, but I think it would be useless to attempt to persuade foreign countries
which favour the policy of taxing foreign commercial travellers to waive the tax in the case of British travellers. Any case of discrimination against British subjects would, of course, be taken up. We are not prohibited by treaty from imposing fees on commercial travellers, but in view of the most-favoured nation Clause such fees would have to be uniform; it would not be possible in the case of the numerous countries with which we have commercial treaties embodying that Clause to vary the fees payable according to the nationality of the traveller.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Cannot the treaties containing the most-favoured nation Clause, which prohibits us doing what appears desirable, be denounced?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Of course, it would be competent to denounce all the commercial treaties, but I think that would be a very extreme course to take in order to meet a relatively small grievance.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

TRADING REPRESENTATIVES.

Colonel NEWMAN: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any trading representatives have been sent from this country to Russia; and, if so, has he received any report from them or from any other accredited source as to the prospects of trade between the two countries?

Mr. LYLE: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department, either alone or in conjunction with the Department of Overseas Trade, is sending any commercial representatives to Russia in connection with the Russian trade agreement, and will he in that case state their names and their general plans?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No official agents have yet been sent from this country to Russia as provided for under Article V of the Trading Agreement. I am considering carefully the selection of such agents, but am not yet in a position to, announce their names.

Colonel NEWMAN: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many trading representatives have been appointed by the Russian Communist
Government to this country; and does the Communist Government before the appointment of such representatives submit the name to the Board of Trade for its approval?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No official agents have yet been appointed by the Russian Soviet Government in this country under Article V of the Trading Agreement. As regards the latter part of the question, the Article referred to provides that either party may refuse to admit any individual as an official agent who is persona non grata to itself or may require the other party to withdraw him should it find it necessary to do so on grounds of public interest or security.

POLITICAL TRADE DELEGATIONS.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 27.
asked the Prime Minister if any instructions regarding the work of political trade delegations, aiming at the achievement of a world revolution, have been recently issued by the Soviet Government of Russia; and, if so, whether they are believed to have been issued before or since the recent signing of a trade agreement with this country?

Sir W. DAVISON: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a series of instructions to Russian trade delegations abroad issued by the executive committee of the Third International, of which Lenin is the president; whether he is aware that it is provided, in the first paragraph of the said instructions, that trade relations must always be made to serve the interests of Communist propaganda of the Third International under the direct control of its executive committee, and that the object of primary importance to be kept in view by the said trade delegations is the spreading of discontent among workmen and soldiers, and the preparation of strikes and disturbances; whether any representations have been made to the Russian Soviet Government as to the said instructions to trade delegations, having regard to the last two paragraphs of the preamble to the Russian trade agreement; and whether any and, if so, what steps are being taken to prevent trade delegates from Russia from carrying out the instructions of the Third International for the stirring up of revolutionary movements in the countries to which they are accredited?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): As was stated by the Leader of the House, in reply to similar questions on the 6th April, His Majesty's Government are prepared to take appropriate action should the necessity arise. Meanwhile, I have received from M. Krassin a categoric denial of the authenticity of the document which recently appeared in the Press, and to which the Leader of the House referred in an answer given on the 6th April.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact that the opinions expressed in this document accurately represent the opinions of the Third International?

The PRIME MINISTER: What really concerns us is whether the trade agreement has been infringed or not. If the Moscow Government had sanctioned the issue of a document of this kind, there is no doubt it would have been a gross infringement of the trade agreement, and we should have had to act accordingly. Now I understand that their statement is that this document, which purported to be issued by the Moscow Government, is a forgery.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Will His Majesty's Government inquire from the newspaper which published this document where they got it, and how they came to publish it without first assuring themselves of its authenticity?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have got a good deal of work, and if the Government were to investigate every statement that appears in the newspapers, there would be no end to the bureaucracy that would be set up.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not much more important than any ordinary statement appearing in the newspapers?

EXTERNAL INDEBTEDNESS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Trade Agreement recently concluded with the Government of Russia postpones the discussion of the pre-revolution external indebtedness of Russia to a general peace conference to be held hereafter; when His Majesty's Government proposes to take steps to invite all Governments interested to take part in such a conference; and whether a preliminary peace conference, at which all political questions
outstanding as well as debts could be discussed, can be held between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government consider that the first step is to bring the Trade Agreement into practical working. They are not prepared to make proposals for a general conference until they have gained experience of the working of this Agreement.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many financial questions concerning British subjects are held up until this general conference is held; and does he also see that while that state prevails, it is difficult in some cases for trade to be started?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think we had better see whether one arrangement will work before we start a more comprehensive one.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ALIEN MINERS (SCOTLAND).

Colonel NEWMAN: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the mining population in that part of Scotland where attempts of sabotage at the mines and attacks on civilians have been most frequent contains a substantial proportion of foreigners; and will he advise the competent Government Department to exercise the powers it possesses to deport those who have been guilty of such acts?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is that the proportion of aliens is small. Taking the six counties, Ayrshire, Fifeshire, Lanarkshire, and the East, West and Mid-Lothians, I understand that the total mining population is about 131,900 and the number of alien miners registered with the police is.1,530, or slightly over one per cent. I am prepared to exercise in all proper cases my power to make deportation orders against aliens. So far, no aliens have been reported to me from Scotland, whether on conviction or otherwise, as having done
anything in connection with the present trouble to justify their deportation.

Mr. J. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to the number of aliens who are members of the Middle Classes Union?

Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir; I am unable to do so.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is he aware that by our rules we are not allowed to have aliens?

Mr. JONES: What about Whitechapel?

SUBSIDIES.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount of the subsidies paid to the coal trade during the five years to 31st March, 1921. which subsidies were necessitated principally by the large successive increases in wages granted to the colliery workers during that period?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): The total amount of irrecoverable payments made to the coal mining industry during the five years ended 31st March, 1921, is approximately £14,250,000, and it is estimated that a further £2,000,000 will be required during the current year in respect of outstanding claims under the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, 1918.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is it true that the whole of the deficit is due to the fact that cheap coal has been supplied to the people in this country?

Captain Viscount CURZON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that, may I ask, whether that is not exactly what the miners struck for on the last occasion ―so that the consumer might have cheaper coal?

Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: Where do these subsidies come from? Do they come from the taxation of the country, or from the pool created by the mining industry itself?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The figures given in my answer come out of the taxation of the country.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks it right or reason able that there should be a continuation of a subsidy for one specific industry?

Mr. J. JONES: What about agriculture?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that both sides are meeting now and answers of this kind are not calculated to lead to peace?

Sir F. HALL: Is it necessary or advisable in the interests of the country that we should have these things considered in a hole and corner way? Let us know where we are.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of general policy.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May I say I have endeavoured in my answer to avoid saying anything which might prejudice the position.

MINES (FLOODING).

Sir A. FELL: 14.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can state up to the latest date available the number of the collieries in Great Britain which have been flooded by water and the number of the men employed in them, and the number of these collieries which are never likely to be opened again and the number of the men employed in them?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My information is that some 40 pits which afforded employment to about 16,000 workers are completely flooded. It is impossible to forecast how many of these pits will eventually be worked again; economic considerations as well as the question of practicability are involved.

Sir A. FELL: Is it hoped that there will be no more pits damaged beyond the
40?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, certainly, it is hoped so.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many ponies have been destroyed?

Mr. J. JONES: No ponies. A lot of asses have been.

WAGES AND PROFITS.

Sir F. HALL: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether, with the object of enlightening the public as to the facts of the present coal dispute, the Government will arrange for the issue of a
statement giving particulars of the former rates of pay of colliery workers, distinguishing between men, youths, boys, and women; the proposed new district rates which have been refused; and the profits, if any, which the payment of those rates would have allowed to the owners; and if he will have included in such Return a comparison of pre-War and present rates of pay, hours of work, and output, and a comparison of the coal production costs of this country and of other countries with which the British coal trade has to compete?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In view of the large number of different classes of colliery workers, and the variety of wages, not only as between district and district and between class and class, but also within a single class in a single district, and the variety also of earnings among persons on the same rates of wages, it is difficult to give comprehensive information on the lines suggested which either is not so long and detailed as to-be confusing, or on the other hand does not include averaged figures which may mislead. I recognise, however, the importance of giving as full information as possible on this subject, and I am considering in what form I can most usefully supply it. But I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the wages offered by the owners, though they have been communicated to the miners in each district, have not yet formed the subject of negotiations between them.

Sir F. HALL: But does my right hon. Friend recognise the fact that when there is a question of wages being discussed we always hear of average wages? There is no attempt to draw attention to wages paid to boys, women and all those other people. Is he aware that they are all lumped together to look as if there were a tremendous reduction of wages?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think it is much better to let the owners and miners discuss this matter before we go into details here.

LABOUR COSTS.

Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state, for the information of the House, the labour costs per ton of coal raised from the British coalfields in 1921 as compared with the labour costs per
ton of coal raised in the coalfields of New South Wales, Australia, for the last year for which figures are available; whether the average yearly tonnage of coal raised by the New South Wales miner in 1920 was 488 tons as compared with 240 tons raised by the British coal-miner; and that the average weekly wage for coalminers in Great Britain was about 33⅓ per cent, higher than that of the New South Wales coalminer?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am making inquiry with regard to the particulars asked for by the hon. and gallant Member, and will communicate with him as soon as the information is available.

LIGHT AND POWEK.

Viscount CURZON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in spite of the Regulations on the subject so far introduced, his attention has been drawn to the gross waste of light and power now taking place in shops, restaurants, places of entertainment, and private establishments; and whether, in the event of the industrial stoppage being prolonged or extended, he will issue such Regulations, backed by an appeal to the community, which will ensure that the consumption of light and power can be reduced forthwith by at least two-thirds?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My attention has not been called to any general failure to comply with the provisions of the Coal Emergency Directions, 1921, and I would remind my Noble Friend that the duty of seeing that the Directions are observed rests upon the local authorities who would obtain advice from the Police if necessary. The question whether any further restrictions upon the consumption of fuel are necessary or desirable in the circumstances to which my Noble Friend refers is being carefully considered.

Viscount CURZON: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman not been drawn to the excessive lighting in some shop windows? Will not something be done to reduce this waste?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have just tried to explain to the hon, and gallant Gentleman that the attention of the local authorities should be drawn to these matter's before my attention is drawn to them. It is the duty of the local authorities to see that
something is done; if they do not, then my hon. and gallant Friend can draw my attention again to the matter.

Viscount CURZON: How can we get something done?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Whose duty is it to bring the matter before the local authorities?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is the duty of men like the hon. and gallant Member, if he knows a case, to bring it before the local authority.

Mr. J. JONES: Will similar limitations be suggested on the use of petrol by men who are always breaking the law?

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.

Captain BOWYER: 17.
asked the Minister of Transport whether and, if so, when it is proposed to introduce a further Bill dealing with electricity supply?

Mr. R. YOUNG: 15.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is proposed to re-introduce the Electricity Supply (No. 2) Bill as promised when the Bill was withdrawn last Session?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): It will be convenient if I answer this question and No. 15 at the same time. It is intended to re-introduce the Electricity (Supply) Bill to-morrow.

Captain BOWYER: Will that be in the same form as the Bill of last Session?

Sir E. GEDDES: No, it will be modified.

Sir J. REMNANT: May I ask whether it is still the intention of the Government to saddle the rates with £30,000,000 for the new scheme as well as the £20,000,000 previously estimated?

Sir E. GEDDES: No, Sir, it is not intended to saddle the rates with £30,000,000, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will wait until the Bill is introduced.

Captain BOWYER: When shall we have a chance of seeing it?

Sir E. GEDDES: The Bill will be introduced to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAYS (GROUPING).

Sir J. D. REES: 16.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is still proposed to group the Midland Railway with the North Western Railway, whereby the interests of Nottingham, Leicester, Sheffield, Bradford and Leeds cannot but suffer; whether the intention to amalgamate the Great Central Railway with the Great Eastern Railway, North Eastern Railway, and Great Northern Railway still holds the field; and whether he is aware that these combinations appear to the Midland areas affected to be incongruous and detrimental to the public interest?

Sir E. GEDDES: I cannot accept the statements upon which the hon. baronet bases the first part of his question, and as to the remainder I must ask him to await the introduction at an early date of the Bill for the re-organisation of railways.

Sir J. D. REES: Is it a fact that there has been some reconsideration of this lateral grouping in favour of the longitudinal principle?

Sir E. GEDDES: It is a little difficult to say what is lateral and what is longitudinal. I have been reconsidering the whole question, and when the Bill is introduced my right hon. Friend will see what the proposals are.

PERISHABLE GOODS BY PASSENGER TRAINS.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has reconsidered the question of the transit of fish, vegetables, and other perishables by passenger train traffic, charges being payable by consignee as prior to 1917; if he is aware of the dissatisfaction among the traders concerned with the attitude of the Ministry of Transport in this matter; and what is the reason of the non-resumption of these facilities for traders?

Sir E. GEDDES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Exhaustive inquiries have been made, and it has been found that, if the practice obtaining prior to 1917 were again adopted, considerable additional staff would be required. In the circumstances it is not considered practicable to revert to the old practice.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if there is any hope of reverting to the old practice, and whether under the present system the railway companies, in some cases, are careless about the proper delivery of these perishable goods, whereas under the old system they took good care of them?

Sir E. GEDDES: I regret if there has been any carelessness. As to the prospect of reverting to the old system, it is obvious that, as in every business, we have to economise at the present time. I certainly hope the old practice can be reverted to later on.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In
the meantime, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that traders in perishable goods are very dissatisfied indeed, and can he hold out hopes of an early resumption of the old practice, which worked so very well?

Sir E. GEDDES: It worked very expensively.

Mr. WATERSON: Are we to understand that we shall never revert back to the old express goods service with passenger rolling stock?

Sir E. GEDDES: No. As I have said, we may revert to it in time, but not at present.

HEAVY MOTOR LORRIES (SPEED).

Mr. C. WHITE: 19.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is intended to embody in the Regulations governing the speed of vehicles a Clause curtailing the speed of heavy motor lorries passing through towns and villages, as at present much damage is done to walls and ceilings of houses by vibration caused by the high speed of these vehicles?

Sir E. GEDDES: The point referred to by my hon. Friend is under consideration by the Departmental Committee on the Regulation of Road Vehicles, and I propose to defer consideration of the matter until I receive their recommendations.

MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION).

Viscount CURZON: 20.
asked the Minister of Transport how much was received from the taxation of commercial motor vehicles and how much from the taxation of private motor vehicles, respectively, during the first quarter of 1921?

Sir E. GEDDES: I would refer my Noble Friend to page 6 of Return No. 66 presented to the House on the 5th of April, a copy of which I am sending him. This Return gives the particulars asked for up to the 7th of March. A further sum of £706,960 6s. 5d. has been collected between that date and the 31st of March, but particulars of the amounts paid in respect of each class of vehicle for the latter period are not yet available.

Sir F. HALL: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that payment of the whole of the annual tax in one sum presses very hardly upon some of the taxicab driver owners; and whether he will therefore give instructions that the fourth quarterly instalment shall be charged as only the difference between the three-quarters which have been paid by the owner and the amount due to make up the sum that he would have to pay provided he made his payment at the beginning of the year in one lump sum?

Sir E. GEDDES: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 22nd of March in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, S.E. (Mr. J. W. Hopkins), of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir F. HALL: Was that reply sympathetic; is there any chance of it being done?

Sir E. GEDDES: If my hon. Friend will look at the answer and then put down any further question, I think he will see that I am very sympathetic with the taxicab drivers.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: May I ask if, in the case of vehicles that were built before 1913, it will in the future be necessary to pay the whole tax in advance, or whether the rebate may be deducted when paying for the licence?

Sir E. GEDDES: The arrangement for the first year had to be rather different, but in the case of every old vehicle, where a refund was claimed and obtained, a voucher has been given that one simply has to attach to the application.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a request from the Motor Legislation Committee to discuss with him this and other anomalies
of the new scale, when the present pressure is over?

Sir E. GEDDES: The hon. Baronet told me, I think, that such a request was coming, but I must plead guilty to not having seen it myself.

Colonel NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman sympathetically consider a deputation from the taxicab drivers?

Sir E. GEDDES: I do not think I have been asked to receive a deputation.

Colonel NEWMAN: I have been requested to ask if you would?

Sir E. GEDDES: Certainly.

ROADS (CLASSIFICATION).

Viscount CURZON: 21.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the classification of roads is as yet complete; if not, when it will be; whether the details will be communicated to Parliament in a White Paper; whether any legislation will be required as a result of the classification; whether any start has yet been made with the reform of the sign and danger posting of the roads of the country; if so, to what extent; and, if not, whether it will be possible to do anything in connection with this subject in the absence of legislation?

Sir E. GEDDES: The preliminary scheme for the classification of roads in England and Wales and Scotland is complete and will be operative during the current financial year. Some particulars of the scheme are set out in Appendix 6 to the 10th Annual Report on the Administration of the Road Improvement Fund, which was presented to the House on 15th February, and additional information upon the subject will be given in the next Report. No legislation is necessary in connection with this classification. As regards the fifth part of the Noble Lord's question, a commencement has been made in co-operation with local authorities with the reform of the direction and motor signal posting of the roads of the country upon a standardised basis. No returns are yet available to show the progress made. I hope that it will be possible to do much to improve the sign and danger posting without legislation, but additional powers may be necessary to secure the removal of unauthorised signs put up privately.

CHEAP KAILWAY FAKES.

Mr. WATERSON: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the railway companies have refused to grant facilities for reduced fares to choirs and choral associations attending choral festivals, and to delegates and students, attending educational conferences and short period schools, etc., and that the workers of the country are thereby prevented from obtaining even that educational development and recreation which they had prior to the War; and will he take steps to have this grievance removed?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am not aware of what is stated by the hon. Member. The whole question of the issue of tickets at fares less than the ordinary has been inquired into by the Rates Advisory Committee, set up under Section 21 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, whose Report has been issued as a Command Paper (Cmd. 1148). The Committee are of opinion that the issue of cheap tickets to clubs, associations and pleasure parties may well be left to the commercial discretion of the companies, where- their responsible managers are of opinion that such a grant would produce additional net revenue. I have accepted the recommendation of the Committee in this matter, and am in communication with the railway companies as to giving effect thereto. I am encouraging them to do so wherever additional revenue will result.

ELECTRICITY, GREATER LONDON.

Mr. GILBERT: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in July of last year, the Electricity Commissioners provisionally determined an electricity district for the Greater London area under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919; whether, at the same time, they invited the various interested parties to submit by a certain date representations with respect to such area and, if so desired, schemes providing for the reorganisation of electricity supply in the district; whether, as the result of this invitation, the London County Council, the local authorities, and a number of companies have, in combination or separately, prepared at much expense schemes which they have submitted to the Commissioners; whether the Commissioners have provisionally announced that an inquiry with respect to such
schemes will be opened early in June next; whether, in the light of experience gained in connection with inquiries already opened by the Commissioners with respect to other districts, it is anticipated that the inquiry into the London case, if held, will occupy a very considerable period and involve heavy expenditure to all the parties concerned; whether it is essential, if a scheme is to be approved to deal with the London area, that additional financial powers supplementary to those contained in the Act of 1919 should be first approved by Parliament; and if, in these circumstances, and with a view to avoiding fruitless expenditure of public money, he will state whether the Government proposes to introduce, as promised by him in December last, at an early date a Bill to confer these additional powers?

Sir E. GEDDES: The answers to the various statements in the hon. Member's' question are in the affirmative, though, as the hon. Member is aware, the Electricity Commissioners have made arrangements by which the inquiry will be shortened as far as possible with a view to reducing expenditure to a minimum. As regards the final sentence, I would refer him to the answer which I have just given to Questions 15 and 17.

Sir J. REMNANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us any estimate of the expense of holding this inquiry?

Sir E. GEDDES: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will put a question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

EX-MAYOK O'CALLAGHAN (MURDER).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a letter, dated 31st March, 1921, sent to him by Alderman Marie O'Donovan, sister of the widow of ex-Mayor O'Callaghan, of Limerick,' enclosing copies of letters addressed to the Press by that lady on 14th and 30th March, 1921, stating that Mrs. O'Callaghan has evidence in her possession which, if brought before an impartial jury, would bring home the guilt of the murder of her husband to the individuals responsible, and asking for such a jury; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on Thursday last to a question by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh).

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman given any further consideration to setting up what he describes as a fresh and independent inquiry? What sort of inquiry will that be? Will it simply be another military inquiry by the same people, or will it be a form of judicial inquiry?

The PRIME MINISTER: The same inquiry, but I guarantee it will be a perfectly independent tribunal.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider a military tribunal on which the local commanders of troops in this area are sitting to be an independent tribunal? Is that his idea of an independent tribunal?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly it is. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the military in that area Are exceedingly anxious to get the facts, -and they set up a thoroughly independent tribunal.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the lady in question is prepared to furnish proofs, as she alleges, of the assailants and assassins, and does he not think it worth while to try and meet her, and to set up, at any rate, a judicial inquiry apart from the military, if he wants the matter cleared up?

The PRIME MINISTER: This will be a judicial inquiry.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Will there be a legal member of the Court?

The PRIME MINISTER: I believe there is a legal member of every Court.

CREAMERY FIRE, KILMACTRANNY.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 73.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Kilmactranny creamery and co-operative stores, Co. Roscommon, valued at £10,000, were completely destroyed by fire on Saturday night; and whether he can give the House any information as to the cause of the fire?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): As a result of very careful inquiries which have been made, there is at present no reason for believing that the destruction of this creamery was other than purely accidental.

MRS. DILLON (ARREST).

Mr. J. JONES: 74.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Mrs. Dillon, wife of Professor Dillon, of Galway University, has been arrested; that she is a delicate lady with three children, the youngest being only three months of age; that the documents alleged to have been found upon her related only to the relief of distress caused by arson and robbery on the part of Crown forces; and whether directions will be given for this lady's immediate release?

Mr. HENRY: Mrs. Geraldine Dillon, wife of Professor Dillon, of Galway University, has been arrested on a charge of having in her possession documents prepared for the purpose of spreading false reports against the Crown forces. These documents are being sent to General Headquarters for examination, and at present it is not considered advisable to release Mrs. Dillon on bail. Her youngest child is six months old and is in charge of a nurse.

AUXILIARY POLICE.

Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: 75.
asked the Chief Secretary if he can inform the House as to the number of men who are enrolled for service as auxiliary Royal Irish Constabulary in Ireland; what records, if any, are available as to the service of these men in the Great War; whether any have won distinctions in the field for gallantry; and what precautions, if any, are taken against allowing men with bad military records to enrol in this force?

Mr. HENRY: The present strength of the auxiliary division of the Royal Irish Constabulary is 1,481. The division is composed entirely of ex-officers and the military record of each man is verified by the War Office before he is accepted as a recruit. He has also to account satisfactorily for the period since the date of his demobilisation. A very high percentage of the men accepted won exceptional distinction for gallantry in the field during the late War, as will be seen from the following list of decorations held by mem-
bers of the division: 1 V.C., 2 C.M.G.s, 22 D.S.O.s, one with three bars; 135 M.C.s, 16 M.C.s with bars, 23 D.C.M.s, two with bars; 63 M.M.s, 40 foreign orders, and I Tank Corps Order of Merit. In addition, 350 members of the division were mentioned in despatches.

DISTURBANCES, DUNGARVAN.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 76.
asked the Chief Secretary whether, subsequent to an ambush of police near Dun-garvan, a levy of £100 each was made on 25th March on the following residents of the town: Mr. Fraher, Mrs. Boyle, Mr. M. Moloney, Mr. Patrick Hehir, and Mr. Thomas Casey, and as the fines were not paid, except by Mr. Fraher, the furniture of these persons was destroyed; whether he will state by whose orders these fines were imposed; why these persons were selected; and whether there was any evidence that they were concerned in the ambush?

Mr. HENRY: This place is in the martial law area. I have therefore called for a report from the Commander-in-Chief with reference to the matter, and if the Noble Lord will repeat the question, of which I only received notice on Saturday, one day next week I shall be glad to furnish him with a reply.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it part of the Government of Ireland s policy to levy on private individuals a system of collective fine's?

Mr. HENRY: If my hon. and gallant Friend will repeat his question when I receive the information, I shall be happy to answer it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows whether that is the Government policy or not? Is he not one of the Law Officers of the Crown?

HOUSES, DESTRUCTION (SKIBBEEEEN).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 77.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he has received a report on the destruction by Crown Forces near Skibbereen on 9th March of four houses belonging to persons named Connolly, O'Sullivan, M'Carthy, and Driscoll; whether this was an official reprisal, and, if so, for what offence; and on what principle these houses were selected?

Mr. HENRY: This place is in the martial law area. I have therefore called for a report from the Commander-in-Chief with reference to this matter. I shall be glad if the Noble Lord will repeat the question, of which I only received notice on Saturday, one day next week.

ESCAPING PRISONER'S DEATH.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 78.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has made further inquiry into the death of Andrew Moynihan, who was killed while being taken by a number of Auxiliaries from Killarney to Tralee; and whether he can now say whether the military authorities charged Mrs. Moynihan £10 for the coffin into which they put her husband and £6 for a motor car in which to take the body home?

Mr. HENRY: As I stated in reply to a question by the Noble Lord on the 10th ultimo, the finding of the court of inquiry in this case was that the deceased attempted to escape from custody and that no blame in the matter of his death attached to any member of his escort. I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that from the very careful inquiries he has made he is satisfied that the allegation that Mrs. Moynihan was charged by the military authorities for the coffin or other funeral expenses of her husband is quite untrue.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement about Moyihan being killed whilst trying to escape is generally discredited both in Ireland and this country?

DISTURBANCES, BALLYMACELLIGOT.

Mr. WATERSON: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether he will-state the time, place and date of the trial of the men concerned in the Bally-macelligot incidents and whether such ti'ial will be in public?

Mr. HENRY: This trial will take place on Tuesday next, the 12th instant, at Cork at 10 a.m. As regards the last part of the question, all such trials are public, subject to the discretion of the President of the Court to hear any evidence in camera where he considers this course necessary to safeguard the lives of witnesses.

Mr. WATERSON: Will any restriction be imposed upon the defending counsel, and will the defending counsel have the opportunity of cross-examining the prose outing witnesses, or is it merely to be a repetition of the Mallow inquiry?

Mr. HENRY: Subject to the qualification, which applies to all these trials, of safeguarding the lives of witnesses, they will have that privilege.

Mr. WATERSON: My right hon. Friend, of course, is aware that these men are on trial for their lives, and will he see that fair treatment is given and that cross-examination will take place?

Mr. HENRY: Fair treatment is always given by these Courts.

Mr. WATERSON: Can the-right hon. Gentleman give the assurance that the defending counsel will have the opportunity of examining the prosecuting witnesses?

Mr. HENRY: I have already answered that, and I can add nothing to what I have said.

MILITARY INQUIRIES.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private, Notice) asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether it is the fact that at the inquiry into the death of Christopher Reynolds, which took place in Dublin on Friday last, the Press and the legal representatives of the next-of-kin were excluded; and whether this exclusion of the public and the Press, and of the counsel for the next-of-kin, is not a violation of the pledge given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the publicity of the proceedings?

Mr. HENRY: The Press were admitted during a portion of the inquiry, but on Friday the President of the Court-Martial, in view of the fact that certain witnesses would be in grave peril, directed that these witnesses should be examined in camerâ. He offered to read over the evidence to the legal representatives of the accused, and to put for them any questions they suggested. I distinctly stated, in answer to my hon. Friend on Thursday last, that this power rested with the President of a court-martial, and I might mention that in quite a number of cases recently witnesses have been followed for hundreds of miles and murdered.

Mr. O'CONNOR: May I take the answer of the right hon. Gentleman as meaning that these witnesses―some of whom are among the persons suspected of having committed this murder―were examined in the absence of the legal representatives of the next-of-kin?

Mr. HENRY: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. O'CONNOR: My right hon. Friend knows very well that that was the case, because it is published in all the papers. May I ask him, as a member of the legal profession, whether it is possible adequately to cross-examine any witnesses whose oral testimony has not been heard by the counsel who have to cross-examine them?

Mr. HENRY: It is a choice between two evils, and I prefer to take the evil of which my hon. Friend complains rather than that witnesses should be murdered.

RAILWAY OUTRAGE, KERRY.

Mr. O'CONNOR: asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he has any information on the subject of the following telegram:
Repairs to injured railway line G.S. and W. Railway Farranfore to Millstreet were completed Thursday last. Military prohibit resumption of traffic thereon. Serious injury follows to public interest; butter―a perishable article―eggs, etc., and other products cannot be sent to market. Shall be obliged if you ask question on the matter with a view to removing the block early.

Mr. HENRY: The portion of the line to which my hon. Friend refers is a portion of the Great Southern and Western Railway in Kerry. The injuries to the line which led to the disturbance of traffic were caused by bombs placed by Sinn Fein bodies under the railway bridges, and the result has been to cut off the whole district from the outside world. The military are considering when they will allow it to be re-opened for traffic.

MINISTERS' SALARIES.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to apply the recommendations of the Select Committee on Ministers' Salaries to the newly-constituted Government; and, if not, whether he will give a day for the discussion of the Committee's Report?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which the Leader of the House gave to the hon. Member for the Eye Division (Mr. Lyle-Samuel) on the 5th April.

Sir S. HOARE: Does that mean that there will be a discussion on this Report?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know.

Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since then the Government have made arrangements outside the recommendations of that Report and appointed another Minister at £5,000 a year to do nothing?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is not true.

Sir S. HOARE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the point of my question is, are the new appointments to receive salaries on the basis of the Committee's Report?

The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. Friend would really take the trouble to look at the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, he would see that that is an answer to his question for the time being. My hon. Friend really cannot have looked at that answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

UNITED STATES.

Major C. LOWTHER: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has received a note from the Government of the United States of America affirming that America is not bound by any decision contained in the Treaty of Versailles or adopted by the Supreme Council of the League of Nations; whether he is aware that such an affirmation implies that nothing that has been concluded in Europe since 1918 is in any way binding on America; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?

The PRIME MINISTER: Since this question was put down, the text of the note has been communicated to the Press by the United States Government. The note is engaging the earnest attention of His Majesty's Government.

Sir J. D. REES: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether an official intimation has been received to the effect that the United States of America will not join the League of Nations but that the United States Government will take steps with a view to the ultimate realisation of the formation of an association of nations based on an international tribunal for the settlement of all justiciable questions; and, if so, whether such intimation will result.in any change of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government towards the existing League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: No official intimation to this effect has been received from the United States Government.

Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether a league which excludes the greater part of Europe, Asia, Africa and America could ever fulfil the ideals involved?

HUNGARY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 32.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Peace Treaty (Hungary) Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that it is not possible at present to name a date, but we are anxious to take the Second Reading of the Bill as early as possible.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we be assured that it will not be taken after eleven o'clock at night?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope so.

GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: 42.
asked the Prime Minister if he is now able to convey any further information to the House with reference to the arrangements for the trial at Leipzig of Germans charged with cruelty to British prisoners of war?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to suggest to the Allies that a time limit be given Germany within which the Germans charged with cruelty during the War must be brought to trial?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I am asked to reply. It is definitely arranged that the interrogation of British witnesses who are un-
able to proceed to Leipzig is to commence in London on Tuesday, 26th April. The Attorney-General at Leipzig has accepted this arrangement, and intimates that it seems probable that the main trials will commence at Leipzig at the end of May.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask whether the right hon. and learned- Gentleman remembers on the 28th February, he said he had interviews with legal representatives of Germany, and it was quite expected that the trials would commence within one month from that date; and, in view of the delay, will he not represent to Germany that, unless she hurries up these trials, there will be brought to bear against her all the resources, both moral and physical, of the League of Nations?

Mr. J. JONES: Send the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) there to bring them all back.

Sir G. HEWART: I remember the interview, and I remember the answer, but I do not remember the date.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I do.

Sir G. HEWART: I am quite sure the hon. Member also remembers that since that date there has intervened an assertion of sanctions which has a little altered the position. I hope this matter will now proceed without further delay.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: That, of course, means, does it not, that Germany has broken faith again?

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean that the evidence, instead of being given in the usual way―that is, the witnesses being called at the trial―the examination will take place in a private room before some official; and that all that will be called in evidence will be the depositions of the soldiers who have been injured?

Sir G. HEWART: I think my hon. and learned Friend forgets what has so often been said in this matter. In October of last year we supplied to the German Government statements in full, printed with exhibits of all the witnesses which were relevant to these accused persons. We have since ascertained that some of those witnesses were ready to go to Leipzig and give evidence orally. With regard to the remainder, their evidence
is to be taken in London in the presence of representatives of the accused persons, who may, if they think fit, cross-examine. The depositions so taken will then be admitted at the trial in Leipzig under laws passed by the German Government for that purpose.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will my right hon. and learned Friend, or the Government, inform the German Government as soon as the depositions are ready, so that there may be no further delay on the part of the Government of Germany proceeding with the trial?

Sir G. HEWART: Personally I shall be happy to do so. But similar reports have been made already.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Can we, in view of the fact that this matter has been evaded time after time, count upon the dates given now by the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Will -the German authorities be made to understand that unless they keep to these dates there will be some penalty?

Sir G. HEWART: I can only say, in reply, that I cannot add anything further as to the dates. My hon. and gallant Friend is perfectly well aware that the enforcement of the sanctions was based in part, and in no small part, upon the default of Germany in this matter.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: It was never mentioned!

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ALLOTMENTS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the great unemployment, he will consider taking the same steps as were taken in the early part of the War in similar circumstances, and get local authorities to take land under the emergency powers for all who will use land for allotments and market gardens?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The emergency, powers for the acquisition of land for allotments, which were exercised during the War under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, have been replaced by the permanent powers conferred on local authorities by the Land Settlement
(Facilities) Act, 1919. Under those powers local authorities can acquire land for allotments, by compulsion if necessary, on 14 days' notice, and the price or rent to be paid can be fixed in default of agreement by an official arbitrator under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. The Ministry is constantly pressing local authorities to exercise these powers wherever there is an unsatisfied demand for allotments.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the Prime Minister, to whom this question was originally addressed, whether, in view of the serious unemployment difficulty in this country at the present time, he cannot undertake to do the same for these people out of work as was done during the War for people out of work, and secure them land for allotments? Is he aware that the 1919 Act is hardly being used at all, and that in any case it is no use to secure allotments for these people, because it requires local authorities to acquire the land, and during the War the land could be taken and handed back to the owners?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think my hon. Friend is wrong when he assumes that the Act of 1919 is not being used. On the contrary, I believe it is being used on a very extensive scale; but, if unemployment continues, I think it will be worth while considering the question of the extent to which allotments might be used for the purpose.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not so much a question of Acts of Parliament as of pressure from himself and by Government circulars urging the local authorities to take action?

Mr. ROYCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very great difficulty arises from the fact that arbitrators are giving excessive awards, and so preventing land being acquired?

BRITISH DEBT TO UNITED STATES.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 33.
asked the Prime Minister what is the total debt row owed by His Majesty's Government to the United States of America Government; how much of this debt is for goods or services supplied to this country; how much for goods and services supplied to
other Allies and underwritten by us; of this latter sum how much was incurred before and how much after the entry of America into the War; and who was responsible for our consenting to underwrite this last sum?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Commander Hilton Young): The debt of the British Government to the United States Government on 31st March, 1921, was $4,197,000,000 (£.862,000,000 at par of exchange) exclusive of interest. The remainder of the question seems to be based on a misapprehension which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has frequently tried to correct. I would refer particularly to his answers to questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir W. Davison) on the 22nd February and 1st March. The debt represents advances made by the United States Government to the British Government towards meeting the dollar requirements of the British Government during the period after the United States of America entered the War, arising either directly from purchases in the United States of America or indirectly for support of exchange. During the same period during which the British Government was thus borrowing from the United States Government, it was lending a sum of £897,000,000 to Allied Governments, in addition to £828,000,000 lent to the Allied Governments before the United States of America entered the War. Had the British Government been relieved of the necessity of lending this £897,000,000 to the Allied Governments, it would, so far as can be judged, have been unnecessary for the British Government to ask financial assistance from the United States Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Am I to understand from that that the £800,000,000 lent by us to our Allies was not for goods bought in the United States by those Allies, but for general purposes?

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: That is so.

INDUSTRIAL INSUEANCE.

Mr. WATERSON: 37.
asked the Prime Minister if he intends introducing legislation on the Report of Lord Parmoor's Committee on Industrial Insurance; and, if so, when?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is hoped to introduce legislation on this subject this Session.

CANADIAN CATTLE.

Mr. WATERSON: 38.
asked the Prime Minister the names of the members of the Commission which will go into the question of the embargo on Canadian cattle?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to be in a position shortly to announce the names of the members of the Commission.

Mr. WATERSON: Will that mean next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Minister of Agriculture will be here shortly, I hope. I shall then be in a position to confer with him.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is it intended to give Ireland any representation on that Commission?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope there will be no representation of any particular localities.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that it is a very vital topic in Ireland.

RENT RESTRICTION ACT.

Mr. KENNEDY: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present wide-spread industrial distress through unemployment, and the general endeavour on the part of employers to reduce wages, it is proposed to suspend the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act empowering house owners to increase rants by 10 per cent?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir A. Mond): I have been asked to reply to this question. The suspension of the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act of last year referred to in the question would, in any case, require legislation, which the Government cannot undertake to introduce.

ROYAL PARKS (CHAIR CHARGES).

Sir W. DAVISON: 53.
asked the First Commissioner of Works under what circumstances the charge for chairs in the Royal Parks has just been increased from
1d. to 2d.; whether he has considered that this 100 per cent, increase is likely to prevent large numbers of people of small means from using the chairs; and whether, under these circumstances, the increased charge will in all probability produce a less revenue than is at present being received?

Lieut.-Commander H. YOUNG: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Wednesday last to a similar question by the hon. Member for Finchley, from which he will see that had not an increased charge been made there would have been a marked loss in revenue, whereas an increased revenue is now secured. A large number of free seats are provided.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how it is that the existing charge maintained throughout the War is now increased, and will he answer the last part of my question which suggests that the increased charge is more likely to bring about a decreased than an increased revenue? Will he also consider the question of the issue of weekly or monthly tickets to infirm persons and persons in charge of children so as to temper the wind to the shorn lamb?

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: The hon. Gentleman will see that the increased revenue is already secured. As to the rest I should like notice of the questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

CARETAKERS (GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS).

Sir S. HOARE: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many posts of caretaker in Government offices and buildings, namely, employment exchanges and local Inland Revenue offices, are held by ex-service men, and how many by non-ex-service men or women; and whether he will make representations to all Departments concerned with a view to their substituting ex-service men for non-ex-service caretakers upon all practicable occasions?

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: Collected figures are not available for Government offices and buildings as a whole. The number of resident caretakers in Ministry of Labour offices is 59; of these. 39 are ex-service men, 11 are non-service men and 9 are women. The number in Inland
Revenue offices is 111; of these, 28 are ex-service men, and 83 are non-service men, or women, 39 of whom were appointed before the outbreak of war, and practically the whole of the remainder between that date and the Armistice. It is understood by these as by other Departments that ex-service men must be substituted for non-service personnel upon all practicable occasions, but I understand that the present shortage of accommodation frequently renders it impossible to displace resident caretakers appointed in the past. I am, however, communicating further with' the two Departments on the subject.

CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.

Major MALONE: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for War when the result of the examination held some time ago for ex-service men for appointments in the Civil Service may be expected?

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: I have been asked to reply. I hope within the next week.

EMBANKMENT GARDENS (HUTS).

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: 55.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, how soon he proposes to remove the empty huts which continue to disfigure the Embankment Gardens between Waterloo Bridge and the Charing Cross underground station?

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply, of which I am sending him a copy, given on Wednesday last to a similar question by the hon. Member for Southwark Central. The huts which are at present unoccupied will be used for the accommodation of staff from requisitioned premises which will be surrendered, as it is the policy of the First Commissioner to release such premises at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

GUILD TENDER, HEYWOOD.

Mr. MYERS: 59.
asked the Minister of Health whether application has been received from the Heywood Corporation for official approval of a guild tender for the erection of houses; whether the matter has received consideration; and
whether it is proposed to approve the tender?

Sir A. MONO: As was stated by my right hon. Friend on 9th March, in reply to the hon. Member for the Westhoughton Division, it has been felt necessary to-limit the number of guild contracts until further experience is gained of the results of -building by this method. I may say, however, that the tender submitted by the guild in this particular case was so high that it would not have been approved in any event.

Six AND FOUR-ROOMED COTTAGES.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 61.
asked the Minister of Health how many six-roomed and how many four-roomed houses have now been built and how many more of each have been approved; what is the grant, respectively, for six-roomed and four-roomed cottages; and what encouragement he can give, for the construction of four-roomed cottages to meet the pressing demand for accommodation on the part of young married couples?

Sir A. MONO: I am not in a position to give the exact figures for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks, but approximately 13,000 non-parlour houses with four rooms and 25,400 parlour houses with five and six rooms have been completed. I presume that, in speaking of grants for these houses, my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to subsidies under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act. The grant allowed for four-roomed houses is £240 per house and for five and six-roomed houses £260. The provision of a sufficient proportion of houses suitable for young married couples has been consistently encouraged by my Department, subject to the particular needs of individual localities.

Sir C. YATE: What is the proportion which the right hon. Gentleman considers necessary?

Sir A. MONO: I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

COMMITTEE ON SCHOLARSHIPS.

Mr. MYERS: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Education what steps have been taken to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on scholarships and free places.

Sir P. MAGNUS: Will any opportunity be given to the House for discussing those recommendations, before steps are taken to give them effect?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): I presume that the hon. Baronet will have an opportunity of raising the point to-morrow on the Estimates. The 23 recommendations of the Departmental Committee cover a great deal of ground and raise large financial and educational issues which are-still under consideration.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS (STAFF VACANCIES).

Mr. F. ROBERTS: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he willrecommend to the authorities controlling secondary schools in receipt of grant aid that vacancies on the staff of such schools should be publicly advertised?

Mr. FISHER: I am not aware that the authorities of grant-aided secondary schools are in need of any such exhortation. I believe that it is the general practice of Local Education Authorities and the governing bodies of such schools to advertise vacancies on the staff.

INTERIM SCHEME, HASTINGS.

Mr. F. ROBERTS: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Hastings Committee submitted an interim scheme of education for approval in January last; that up to the present no decision has been given; whether he can explain the cause of the delay; a/nd whether he proposes to approve the scheme?

Mr. FISHER: I understand that the Local Education Authority for Hastings have prepared an interim scheme under the Education Act of 1918, but that it has not yet received the local publicity contemplated by Section 4 (2) of the Act. It is, therefore, not yet ripe for submission for the approval of the Board.

ROYAL FLEET RESERVE (GRATUITY).

Mr. KENNEDY: 69.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if any representations have recently been made on behalf of the men belonging to the Royal Fleet Reserve for an increase of the present retainer of 6d. per day in order to secure for them the pre-War allowance of 1s. per day; and if it is proposed to grant the increased allowance
now received by the men of the Army Reserve?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr Amery): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the second part in the negative. The gratuity payable to a reservist at 40 years of age after 20 years' qualifying service in the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Reserve has been increased from £50 to £100. As men of the Army Reserve receive neither gratuity nor pension the increase of their allowance affords no ground for a similar increase of the retainer paid to the Royal Fleet Reserve.

CENSUS ENUMERATORS, KIRKCALDY.

Mr. KENNEDY: 70.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that 95 per cent, of the enumerators employed in connection with the forthcoming Census on 17th April in the burgh of Kirkcaldy are persons who are in full-time employment; and if he will state the ground upon which the local registrar in this case and in other districts in Scotland refused to employ the efficient enumerators, including unemployed ex-service men, recommended for the work by the local employment exchange authorities?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Morison): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. My right hon. Friend is informed that a considerably lower proportion of these enumerators are persons in full-time employment. My right hon. Friend is also informed that the local registrar has in no case refused the services of efficient enumerators recommended by the local Labour Exchange. He is not aware of any ground for the suggestion that there has been in any district a reluctance to employ suitable persons who have been recommended by Labour Exchanges.

Mr. KENNEDY: Is the answer based on any evidence secured from the Labour Exchange authorities?

Mr. MILLS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the number of full-time employment persons?

Mr. MORISON: We have not been able to get accurate information on that subject. If my hon. Friend wishes to have further information, perhaps he will put down another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

POLITICAL DEPARTMENT (PAY).

Sir C. YATE: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for India for what reason the Government of India, in issuing the revised rates of pay for officers of the Indian Political Department, have fixed the pay of military officers employed in the political service on a lower scale than members of the Indian Civil Service performing exactly similar duties?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): No change has been made in the system previously in force, under which the same scale of pay is given to both military officers and members of the Indian Civil Service, but the latter receive a personal allowance in addition. The Government of India adhere to the view that the rates of pay for civil and military officers in the Political Department may properly be fixed with reference to the rates that they might have expected to draw in the ordinary course in the Indian Civil Service and Indian Army, respectively.

Sir C. YATE: Is there any reason why the Civil Service officers should get this personal allowance while the military officers do not get it?

Mr. MONTAGU: If my hon. and gallant Friend will read my answer he will find that the reason is given.

ROYAL INDIAN MARINE.

Sir C. YATE: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can now state when steps are to be taken for the re-organisation of the Royal Indian Marine into the Indian Navy?

Mr. MONTAGU: In view of the present financial stringency, any steps in this direction would be impracticable in the near future. As the Prime Minister informed the House on 16th March, the whole question of Empire naval' policy and co-operation will be discussed at the Imperial Conference in June next.

Viscount CURZON: Is it or is it not the policy of the Government to create an Indian navy?

Mr. MONTAGU: No steps are being taken in the immediate future, but this Question will be discussed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

CORPS OF MILITARY ACCOUNTANTS.

Major MALONE: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he can state the exact cost of the Corps of Military Accountants; and if it is intended to continue the corps as a regular branch of the Army;
(2) what is the cost to other units of the Army in respect to the introduction of the system of cost accounting; and what saving, if any, to the public has been consequent on the system?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Sir R. Sanders): I will answer these questions together. As regards the cost of the corps and the saving effected by cost accounting, I would refer to the reply given on 8th March last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewisham East. It is intended to continue the corps as a regular branch of the Army. The cost of improved accounting to combatant units of the Army is nil; in the case of store depots and other establishments whose work more nearly approaches an industrial character there is some extra clerical work, the cost of which cannot be stated, but is not large.

ROYAL ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY.

Captain O'GRADY: 84.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that the clothiers' cutters employed temporarily at the Royal Army Clothing Depot, Pimlico, are not being paid for the Easter holidays, a notice being posted in the factory to that effect; and whether, having regard to the fact that all the contractors on the list pay for holidays if men are engaged beforehand, he will issue instructions that the men in Government employment shall receive the same consideration?

Sir R. SANDERS: Under the rules of the Department casual employés who have less than six months' service are not entitled to payment for holidays. The men referred to by the hon. and gallant Member are employed under the short-time scheme on a day-to-day engagement, and are therefore excluded from payment for the holidays.

BUDGET.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 85.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he intends to open the Budget?

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: Owing to circumstances which I am sure the House will appreciate, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not'yet in a position to name a date.

BEER (GRAVITY).

Sir J. D. REES: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to transfer the functions of the Ministry of Food to his Department; and why, now that there is no lack of cereals and the War has been over for two years, the restriction of gravity to 1,044 degrees on the total output of a brewer is maintained?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Under the Ministry of Food (Cessation) Order, 1921, the powers and duties of the Food Controller, as regards the output of intoxicating; liquor, were transferred to the Board of Trade. The Government are considering whether any and, if so, what restrictions on the gravity of beer should be maintained.

KEY INDUSTRIES BILL.

Major BARNES: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the amount of capital registered as invested in the industries named in the first Section of the Financial Resolution governing the Key Industries Bill; and what has been the annual return on such capital during -the period for 1914 to 1921?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I regret I am unable to furnish the information desired by the hon. Member owing to the fact that a large number of the companies, with registered capital, producing goods specified in the first of the Ways and Means Resolutions are, at the same time, engaged in the manufacture of other products which in many cases constitute the main branches of their activities. Is is therefore impossible to say what proportion of their capital is devoted to the manufacture of key industry products.

Major BARNES: 56.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of people
employed in the industries named in the first Section of the Financial Resolution governing the Key Industries Bill; and what is the amount of wages paid per week to them?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I am afraid information is not available as to the total number of workpeople engaged in the manufacture of the articles named in the Resolution referred to, nor as to the amount of wages paid to such workpeople.

BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION, LIMITED.

Mr. HOGGE: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether it was with the consent of the Government that three gentlemen without any practical knowledge were nominated as directors of the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited;
(2) whether the services of the two managing directors of the British Dye-stuffs Corporation, Limited, have been dispensed with; whether this was done with the knowledge and consent of His Majesty's Government; and whether the board of the company, as at present composed, is without practical knowledge of the industry?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The appointment of directors (other than Government directors) of the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited, does not require the consent of the Government, which has not a controlling interest in the Corporation. I have no doubt, however, that the three new appointments to which the hon. Member refers will greatly strengthen the Board, and I would point out that one of the new directors has had much practical experience as managing director of an important chemical works supplying pro ducts to the textile trades, whilst another is actively engaged in the dyeing of textiles. As regards the termination of the appointment of the two managing directors, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was aware of the intention of the board of directors. The consent of His Majesty's Government was not required. The two gentlemen in question remain on the board of the corporation. I should add that the various changes mentioned were approved by the
shareholders at the recent annual meeting, and that the Government proxies were not used.

RIVERS (POLLUTION).

Sir J. D. REES: 50.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any, and, if so, what action is being, or will be, taken to deal with the pollution of the Trent and other rivers either by giving powers under the proposed new Fisheries Bill, or by introducing a short emergency Bill?

Mr. PARKER: The Ministry has carefully considered to what extent and by what means the pollution of rivers might be controlled in the interests of fisheries. The Minister of Agriculture hopes that, with the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, a solution may be found of this difficult problem, which is complicated by the fact that so many other important interests are involved. The Minister is not at present prepared to discuss the terms of any legislation which it may be found desirable or necessary to introduce on this subject.

Sir J. D. REES: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that this is a very uncontroversial matter, which might really be dealt with if the Government put it forward?

Mr. PARKER: I am afraid I cannot agree that the pollution of rivers is an uncontroversial matter, but I will mention what my hon. Friend says to the Minister.

MINISTEY OF HEALTH (STAFF).

Sir JAMES CORY: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether, while Englishwomen are being dismissed from his Department under the substitution schemes, certain foreign women are being retained?

Sir A. MOND: The dismissal or retention of temporary women in the Ministry of Health is now being decided on reports by the Substitution Committee on the individual cases. There are three temporary clerks, wholly or partly of foreign origin, whose temporary retention is under consideration by the Committee. The services of all will be dispensed with
in due course, as they are ineligible under a Government decision for retention as permanent civil servants.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 62.
asked the Minister of Health the number of county and county borough councils for which he has approved schemes for the appointment of after-care committees for dealing with insured and non-insured tuberculous persons in their areas?

Sir A. MOND: The schemes of 27 county and county borough councils for the appointment of committees of this kind have been approved by the Ministry of Health or their predecessors.

Mr. THOMSON: 63.
further asked the Minister of Health the number of county and county borough councils which have made arrangements for the institutional treatment of non-insured tuberculous per sons in their areas, and the number which have not made such provision for non-insured persons?

Sir A. MOND: Of the 145 county and county borough councils in England and Wales 143 have made arrangements for the institutional treatment of non-insured tuberculous persons, but in one case the provision so far made extends only to dispensary treatment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

WIDOW'S PENSION (MRS. RORIE).

Sir JAMES CORY: 67.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Mrs. Blanche M. Rorie, widow of Captain T. H. B. Rorie, of the 4th Black Watch, who was killed in action in France on 18th–19th August, 1916, while attached to the 10th Gloucesters, was awarded a flat-rate pension of £100, plus £24 (one child); whether he is aware that the introduction of alternative pensions was notified by advertisement in selected papers, and by circulation of Form F; that Form F has been admitted as misleading by the Ministry, and a promise made to amend it; whether Mrs. Rorie, until 1920, was employed by the Canadian Government Pensions Department in the remote High-
lands of Scotland, never received Form F, and never saw a newspaper containing the advertisement, so that she, consequently, only applied for alternative pension in March, 1920, when she first learnt of it, and is only granted the alternative rate from that date; that this means a considerable monetary loss to Mrs. Rorie, owing to no remissness or fault of hers, but owing to ineffective methods of notification on the part of the authorities concerned; and whether he will consider antedating the alternative pension granted to Mrs. Rorie to the date allowed on the flat rate?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): When Mrs. Rorie's flat-rate pension was awarded in 1916 by the War Office alternative pensions did not exist. They were introduced by the Royal Warrant of August, 1917, and the publication of that Warrant was given very full publicity in the Press, several newspapers reproducing it in full. In April of 1919 a handbook for the information of officers' relatives was issued, which described the alternative pension scheme, and this handbook was sent individually to all officers' widows through the Paymaster-General. It is known that Mrs. Rorie received it, because her solicitors, writing in December, 1919, in another connection, said that she had forwarded it to them. My right hon. Friend cannot admit that all reasonable steps were not taken to inform Mrs. Rorie of the benefits of the alternative pension, and he regrets that he cannot make a special exception in her favour by antedating the award.

TREASURY BILLS (TENDERS).

Sir SAMUEL HOARE: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has given consideration to the possibility of reintroducing the system of offering Treasury Bills by tender and thus leaving it to the market to fix the rate for Treasury Bills in accordance with demand and supply?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Home): I have come to the conclusion, after full consideration and consultation, that I should be justified in making a renewed effort to restore the tender system. Accordingly,
beginning on Thursday, 21st April, tenders will be received for a limited number of Treasury Bills to be dated, at the option of the tenderer, on any business day during the week beginning on the following Monday. The bills will be in the same denominations as at present, but it will be necessary in order to bring the work of dealing with tenders within reasonable compass to revert to the pre-War practice of requiring all tenders to be made by or through a bank, discount house or broker, and to limit tenders to amounts of not less than £50,000.
Formal notice will be given in regular course in the Gazette of next Friday, 15th April, of the first offer of bills by tender, and I would refer hon. Members to that notice for fuller particulars of the methods proposed to be followed
In addition to the Bills offered for tender, applications will be received according to the present procedure from day to day, as and when and for such amounts as the Treasury may determine, for "additional" Treasury Bills to be dated the business day next succeeding the date of applications at prices which will be fixed so as to yield rates of discount below the average rates at which Bills of like tenor were sold by tender on the Thursday of the preceding week.
Bills issued to public departments will be sold at the rates fixed for "additional" Treasury Bills sold to the public.
In the first instance, it will be desirable to confine the new system of selling Treasury Bills by tender, and "additional" Treasury Bills (at rates based on the results of tender) to Three Months Bills, and to keep some Twelve Months Treasury Bills on offer as at present at fixed rates.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does that answer represent the right hon. Gentleman's own considered view, or has it been foisted upon him by the banks?

Sir R. HORNE: It is my own considered view.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are the additional Treasury Bills at average prices to be limited to the amount of £50,000 or may they be had in smaller amounts?

Sir R. H0RNE: I do not know that that is quite settled at the moment; but so far as the new Bills for Tender are concerned they must be applied for in the amount I have stated.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: But having regard to the fact that many people cannot afford to apply for such big amounts—no one but the banks in fact—will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of keeping the offer open for average Treasury Bills in smaller sums?

Sir R. HORNE: I certainly will.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has any announcement to make of variation in the business for to-day, and whether, in the event of Mr. Speaker being able to leave the Chair, we can be informed what business will be taken thereafter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that we shall be able to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates in the course of the day. After that we shall take the Committee stage of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill—after eleven, if necessary. We must get on with it. Possibly we may be able to begin it before eleven, and I hope we shall, but, in any case, we must proceed with it after eleven.

Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the whole of the Committee stage of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill will be taken to-night?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would not say that, but we must begin the discussion.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.

The right hon. Sir ARTHUR SACKVILLE TREVOR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN for County of Somerset (Taunton Division)—[after appointment as Minister of Agriculture].

Lieut.-Colonel GEORGE ABRAHAM GIBBS for Borough of Bristol (West Division)— [after appointment as Treasurer of the Household].

BILL PRESENTED.

PUBLIC HEALTH (OFFICERS) BILL,

"to amend the law relating to tenure of office of medical officers of health, sanitary inspectors, and inspectors of nuisances; and for other purposes," presented by Sir PHILIP MAGNUS; supported by Sir Henry Craik, Lieut.-Colonel Raw, Sir James Remnant, and Mr. Myers; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the Docking of Horses Bill and the Performing Animals (Prohibition) Bill): Sir John Baird; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Docking of Horses Bill) Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen and (in respect of the Performing Animals (Prohibition) Bill) Dr. Addison.

Report to Me upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — RESERVE FORCES (PROCLAMATION).

Order for Consideration of His Majesty's Most Gracious Message [8th April] read.

Mr. SPEAKER: read His Majesty's Message, which was as followeth:
George R. I.
The present state, of public affairs and the threatened dislocation of the life of the community occasioned by the existing strike in the coalmines, and its threatened extension to the railway and transport services of the country, constituting in the opinion of His Majesty a state of great emergency within the meaning of the Acts of Parliament in that behalf, His Majesty deems it proper to provide additional means for the Naval, Military, and Air Force Services, and, therefore, in pursuance of those Acts, His Majesty has thought it right to communicate to the House of Commons that His Majesty is, by Proclamation, about to order that the Volunteers under the Naval Reserve Act, 1900, who belong to Class B of the Royal Fleet Reserve, the Army Reserve, and the Air Force Reserve, shall be called into actual service or called out on permanent service, as the case may be, and that soldiers and airmen who would otherwise be entitled in pursuance of the terms of their enlistment to be transferred to the Reserve shall continue in Army or Air Force Service, as the case may be, for such period, not exceeding the period for which they might be required to serve if they were transferred to the Reserve and called out for permanent service, as to His Majesty may seem expedient.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I beg to move:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, thanking His Majesty for his Most Gracious Message communicating to this House His Majesty's intentions with respect to the Reserve Forces.
4.0 P.M.
There are two preliminary observations that I wish to make. In the first place, I have to express the Prime Minister's
regret that he cannot himself be present at this moment in the House. It is the desire of the parties to the Conference in the coal dispute that he should take the Chair at the Conference, at any rate, in its preliminary stage, and it is in order that he may conform to that wish of those principally concerned that he has felt it necessary to absent himself at this moment from the Sitting of the House. The other observation that I wish to make is that this Motion has no operative force and is indeed not required. Sometimes a similar Motion has been made, sometimes it has not been made, and there was no necessity for the Government to give notice of such a Motion to-day except their desire to meet the convenience and wish of the House, and to afford the House an opportunity of discussion at their meeting to-day, should the circumstances be such as in the opinion of the House rendered a discussion necessary or desirable in the public interest. I think that the House will desire that I should briefly acquaint it with the present situation of affairs, but unless the House wishes to continue the discussion now, and I hope it may not think it necessary, I shall gladly accept a Motion from any quarter of the House for an immediate adjournment of the discussion, which we can resume if at any time it appears desirable that the House should do so.
With these preliminary observations, I would report to the House, as indeed hon. Members already know, that in consequence of prolonged and sometimes anxious negotiations carried on on Saturday it was agreed late on Saturday night that the Government should summon a Conference to meet at the Board of Trade this morning to discuss all questions in dispute between the parties in the coal industry, and that same night the Miners' Federation should issue notices to branches of the Federation urging their members to abstain from all action which would interfere with the measures necessary for securing the safety of the mines, or would necessitate the use of force by the Government. Those instructions were issued by the Miners' Federation, and the Conference was summoned by the Government. The Conference sat this morning. On the whole, and speaking broadly, the instructions issued by the Miners' Federation have, I think, been accepted and
followed in the different districts. Difficulties had arisen in some districts, not wholly, I believe, on one side, but those difficulties were at once dealt with in the most amicable spirit by the Conference, each side issuing, wherever it was required, the instructions necessary to remove all doubt and prevent the continuance of the difficulties. The Conference adjourned till four o'clock this afternoon, and is resuming its sitting, I suppose, at this hour. I venture to think that even those who doubt whether the Government were right in insisting that some means should be found for securing the safety of the mines before summoning a Conference for the free discussion of every question in dispute will feel relieved that the safety of the mines was so secured, and that accordingly when the Conference met it met in an atmosphere unprejudiced by that particular difficulty, and that the matters to which I have alluded could be settled at once with the friendly concurrence of both sides of the Conference without any impediment from any other cause.
The right atmosphere was achieved for the meeting of the Conference, and I earnestly trust that, having that, it will not fail to reach a settlement which safeguards the vital interests of the country and which is honourable and satisfactory to both sides in the dispute; but I am bound to tell the House that we are not at the end of our difficulties. Nobody is to blame for the difficulties, not the Government and not either of the parties to the dispute, but those difficulties are immense. Lot me try and present to the House in almost a single sentence a measure of the difficulties with which the two sides to this dispute, given all the good will in the world, are yet confronted before they can arrive at a settlement. Before the slump the export price of coal, free on board, was 89s. 9d.; the corresponding price to-day is 43s. 3d., a drop of 46s. The position therefore is that suddenly, or comparatively suddenly, an impoverished trade is required to find a new basis for wages, to adjust under circumstances of, I think, quite unparalleled difficulty, the wages throughout the whole of their industry. The negotiations under those circumstances must, I fear, take considerable time. They will be fraught with great difficulty, and we must not flatter ourselves for a moment that we are out of danger. Here I must
just say that another element enters into the situation. I am not now speaking of the leaders, the trusted leaders, of industry in this country, I am not speaking of the great unions of the workmen, but everybody knows that outside of them or alongside of them there are other elements in the population who have not the same interests, who do not act with the same sense of responsibility, and who are not unready to seize any opportunity which they think suitable for the propagation of their aims, their ulterior aims, as far removed from those of the recognised leaders of trade unionism as they are from the aims of the Government itself. It must be remembered that the threat of an extension of the dispute to the whole transport industry of the country is suspended, but it is not withdrawn. We were plainly warned of that, and the country should have the warning as well as the Government. It is necessary, therefore, that we should pursue the precautionary measures on which we have already acted, and it is vital that the community should show that in the last resort, if its life and existence are attacked, it has the capacity and the will to protect itself.

Mr. HARTSHORN: That is right, get on to provocative language as soon as you can.

Mr. J. JONES: Get on with the challenge.

HON. MEMBERS: "Another Government blunder," and "This is your lead off in your new office."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been most anxious to avoid any language of a provocative character. I hope that when I read my words reported in the Press, I shall not find that I have used an epithet or a phrase that needlessly provokes passion or opposition, but I speak or behalf of His Majesty's Government under a great sense of responsibility, and when I said that the threat of an extension of the strike was suspended—

Mr. LUNN: It is a lock-out.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I withdraw the word "strike" at once. When I said that a threat of the extension of the dispute was suspended but not withdrawn hon. Gentlemen opposite confirmed my words. It was a warning from them to
the Government. I did not take it as a threat. I did not resent it. I did not accuse them of provocation. They thought it right to address a warning to us. We feel it our duty to address a warning to the country. I will not add another word. I am most anxious that the Conference which is sitting should sit in the most favourable atmosphere. I am most anxious that nothing should be said in this House of all places to make it difficult for the parties to meet with goodwill and for them to arrive at a friendly and an honourable settlement. Less than what I have said I do not think it was compatible with my duty to, say; more than is absolutely necessary, I am sure it would be unwise to say, and therefore I make the Motion which I read at the commencement of my speech, and, as I say, I will gladly accept, if that be the wish of the House, an adjournment of any further discussion to a more favourable opportunity.

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
On Friday I thought fit to express an opinion upon the action of the Government as announced on that day. I am not going to repeat that opinion. The right hon. Gentleman came perilously near the controversial line which I am hopeful that all of us will avoid and therefore I am not going to say a single word further upon the terms which the right hon. Gentleman used in the statement to which we have just listened. I am sure what he wants for the moment is what all of us in the House desire, namely, that so far as this House can make a contribution towards assisting the negotiations to attain success and to secure peace, this House shall do it. I think it can best do it by not proceeding to discuss the Message which you, Sir, have read from the Chair.

Mr. C. WHITE: I will not say one controversial thing. I want to ask the Leader of the House what provision, if any, has been made or will be made for the wives and dependants of those reservists who have been called up, as in many cases great distress already exists and will exist before the week is out if no immediate relief is granted in many of these cases. Some of us intimately know cases of distress occurring at the moment, and I want to ask earnestly,
without interfering one iota in the discussion of this question, what provision, if any, is to be made for these people in these unhappy circumstances.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot give a detailed reply, but the hon. Member shall certainly have such a reply if he will ask a question to-morrow. Provision has been made for the payment of separation allowances and I am assured there is no reason to anticipate suffering from the calling up of the reserves.

Mr. WHITE: I will put a question down to-morrow.

Question "That the Debate be now adjourned" put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

SUPPLY.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1921–22.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." — [Lieut.-Commander Hilton Young.]

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House is of opinion, in view of the present state of the country's finances, that there is an imperative need for more economical Adminstration, and urges the Government to lay down a definite policy for the limitation of national expenditure to an amount dependent on national income.
I am rather sorry that our Debate on this somewhat important question should take place under the cloud of this crisis, because it is very difficult at such a moment as this to discuss as calmly as we otherwise should do the question of finance, and all the more I intend to be as moderate as possible in my remarks and to say absolutely nothing which can be called in any way an exaggerated statement of the case. In fact, I do not think anything could do more harm to the cause of national economy than an exaggerated statement of what the present situation is. I feel that our case is quite strong enough without any exaggeration at all. In fact, I think it is an over-
whelming case, and I very much hope that, not my speech, but the Debate which follows upon it, will really help the Government, and especially help to strengthen their hands in regard to the various Departmental demands which are always being made upon them. To my mind it is quite clear that unless we can get the expenditure down we shall not be able to get taxation down, and unless we can really get taxation down to a very large extent we shall never be able to solve this great problem of unemployment. I do not know whether hon. Members realise what taxation is like at present as compared with other countries. Take our own country first. We are paying in taxation six times what we did before the War; we are paying in rates three times what we did before the War; and if you take taxation and rates together we are paying five times what we paid immediately before the War. When you look at foreign countries, you find that they are in a much more favourable position. I am not taking into account the question of the different exchanges, because it does not benefit, say, an Italian that the exchange is either for or against him if he is buying goods in his own country. We are paying to-day in taxes £22 13s. per head of the population. In France they are only paying the equivalent of £16; in the United States of America they are only paying half as much as we are in taxation; in Belgium they are only paying a third; and in Italy they are only paying a fifth.
I suppose during the last few months almost every great industrial organisation has passed resolutions on this subject. A few weeks ago the Federation of British Industries passed the following resolution:
To-day British industry is fighting for its life. The next 12 months will be the most critical in the economic history of this country. High taxation is a burden on the community, which reacts most prejudicially upon industry. The Federation urge the Government to exercise economy.
That is only one of the very many appeals which have been made during last year. I sometimes hear the Government take a good deal of credit to itself for the way in which it raises taxation from the country. I have heard the late Chancellor of the Exchequer take a, good deal of credit to his own administration and to the Government as a whole for the way they have been able to raise such an
enormous revenue. I really do not think there is much credit in doing that. It is very easy to raise taxation, and, after all, taxation itself is a very bad thing. I do not suppose taxation has ever done the slightest good of itself, and, to my mind, the only excuse for taxation is to maintain national efficiency, and therefore every single penny which you raise over and above the amount that is absolutely required for national efficiency is taxation bad in itself. I do not believe we can go on on the present system of finance and expenditure without grievous harm to the community as a whole. Looking up the figures of last year, I find that there were nearly 4,000 more industrial failures than the year preceding, and there is absolutely no doubt at all that those failures are very largely due to heavy taxation, that taxation, without a doubt, is owing to excessive expenditure, and that expenditure is very largely inflated by expenditure on the Civil Service Estimates.
To come to the actual subject before the House, the Civil Services to-day cost seven times as much as they did before the War. There are nearly 90,000 more officials in the Civil Service than there were before the War. I want to be perfectly fair on this question, and therefore I will cut out the whole of the services arising out of the War, and I will go still further and cut out the whole of the Ministry of Pensions, which also includes, I believe, the administration of old-age pensions. I find the Civil Services still cost 3¼ times what they did before the War. That being so, what happens really to the 2½ times that we are always hearing advanced as an argument from the Government side? The Civil Services are not costing 2½ times, they are costing 3¼ times, what they did before the War. I do not think we ought to aim at a pre-War figure multiplied by a certain amount. The reason given for this multiplication is always that the cost of living has gone up, and it is perfectly right on the assumption that you have to maintain the old pre-War level. But a private individual when he emerges from a great struggle, almost bankrupt, a much poorer man than he was before, cannot go back to his old standard of living. He has got to cut his old standard of living down. Therefore, when Ministers tell us that everything costs 2½ times what it did before the War, they are really begging the question
of economy altogether. Other persons, private individuals, and businesses have to economise, and really the Government must make up its mind to economise too. I should very much like to congratulate my hon. Friend (Lieut.-Commander Hilton Young) on the post which he has lately been given. When he was sitting on these Benches I always regarded him as a very sound financier, and I very much hope he has not only been chosen for his natural abilities, but also because he is a sound economist, for the post which he now fills. I am rather afraid the Government up till now has been afflicted with what we might call the war mentality. During the War they spent millions of public money; they had to. They had to run risks, and necessarily a great deal of money was wasted during the War, but I hope we shall now return to peace finance as quickly as possible.
Only the other day we had an expensive omnibus Health Bill—one of the most expensive Bills ever introduced. There was a great outcry, and the then Leader of the House said he found out after all that the Bill was not at all necessary and half of it was dropped on account of the threat of a bad Division in the Lobby. Not so long ago on a Friday afternoon, much the same sort of thing took place. There was a great outcry on a Supplementary Estimate and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer practically promised a Committee of Estimates at the last moment. It really looks as if the Government will not adopt economy except almost at the point of the bayonet. I do hope that in future they are not going to be so much dragooned into economy, but that they will show a willing spirit and a determination to economise wherever they can possibly do so. I have here a leaflet called "Squandermania Charges Answered," which was issued, I think, from the chief Conservative office, in the name of the late Leader of the House. I am not sure whether it was a speech or whether it was an article written by the late Leader of the House. In it he said that the whole cost of the public services before the War was £200,000,000. He then multiplied that by 2½ and that works out at £500,000,000. He was trying to get at what he called a normal Budget. He then added the post-War debt and war pensions, and arrived at a sort of ideal post-War Budget
of £943,000,000. That was quite incorrect. The £200,000,000 that the late Leader of the House was talking about included the pre War debt charge which is a constant figure. Why multiply that by 2½? There is no reason in it at all. Moreover, the pre-War cost of public services was not £200,000,000 but £197,000,000. If you do not multiply the pre-War debt by 2½, and if you take the cost as £197,000,000 instead of £200,000,000, the multiplication works out not at £500,000,000 but at £456,000,000, and we get a total not of £943,000,000 but a little under £900,000,000. Therefore, the late Leader of the House was £50,000,000 out of his reckoning. If we humble back-benchers made statements like that it would be called sloppy finance, but when Members of the Government do it I am afraid that what is said is, "Why do you take notice of such very unimportant details?"
I should like to know why we need to multiply by 2½. Salaries have not gone up 2½ times. I have made careful inquiries from various officials, and I am told that, taking them as a whole, salaries have not gone up very much more than from 65 to 75 per cent. I am inclined to think that 2½ times is an arbitrary kind of figure to suit the exuberance of Departmental expenditure. That is not the kind of statement which will lead to Government economy. The only cure is the pruning knife, and it ought to be used remorselessly in the Government Departments. The Departmental demands are enormous. It is absolutely useless for an hon. Member on the back Benches, like myself, to get up and make a Motion of this kind unless he gives some reason for doing so, and a certain amount of detail, which I will do as briefly as possible. To strengthen my case, I must give an indication of what I mean when I say that I believe the Departments in many cases could save a good deal of money. Take the Estimate for Law and Justice. I find that the Police in England and Wales cost 62 times what they did just before the War. That seems to me perfectly stupendous. The increase is due to enormous grants to local authorities, meaning a very heavy cost in additional rates. I have the figures which I could quote if necessary. There is also a very large increase in the cost of the County Courts. The County Courts cost 47 times as much as they did before the War. That increase is due to the
fact that while salaries and other expenses have increased, the fees payable by suitors, fines, etc., have decreased. While the work of the County Court has apparently been reduced the staff remains the same, and is paid nearly double.
Then we come to the Ministry of Health. To my mind the Ministry of Health is one of the most extravagant Departments of the State, or it has been in the past. In April, 1919, the late Minister of Health said that 350,000 new houses were required, and 370,000 more houses for replacements, bringing up the total to 720,000 houses. The Prime Minister came down a little over a year later, I think in December, 1920, and added to the figure. He said that 500,000 new houses were required and 500,000 for replacements, or 1,000,000 in all, and it was on these figures that the late Minister of Health based his administrative requirements. These figures are a gross exaggeration. Only the other day the Registrar of Births and Deaths publicly estimated that the number of new houses required in England and Wales, exclusive of replacements, was 140,000. Why did not the Minister of Health before making his Estimates go to, I suppose, the greatest authority on this question in the country? These very inflated Estimates have led to an enormous inflation in the Departments, and huge administrative schemes have been based on fallacious figures. I find that in the Ministry of Health there are now nearly 3,000 more officials than at the Armistice, or nearly double. Surely it is possible to cut down expenditure on the general staff and the various housing commissioners on their staffs. It is true that there has to be a certain amount of work in clearing away slum areas and town planning schemes, but the time has come when we could get more money economised in this Department
In England alone the amount for salaries is half & million more than last year. The salary of the First Secretary goes up from £2,000 to £3,000, apart from War bonus, and the salary of the Second Secretary goes up from £1,700 to £2,200, apart from war bonus. In the old days, when the Department was the Local Government Board—it has practically merely changed its name—there was one Permanent Secretary, with a salary of £2,000, and now we have two Permanent Secretaries, with salaries of £5,200, plus bonus. Very nearly every single section in the
Ministry of Health has gone up in staff and in salaries since last year. The Welsh Board of Health has had an increase of staff this year over last year; the Scottish Board of Health has an increase over last year, and the Irish National Health Commission has an increase over last year. A certain number of low-salaried officers have been dismissed and their places have been taken by officers with much larger salaries. I could give hundreds of instances. Apparently the Ministry of Health is paying very large increases of rent for premises. Why, I cannot make out. The rent of building premises for services arising out of the War shows an increase this year over last. That I cannot understand, because the Ministry of Health is spending this year over £350,000 for adapting buildings to house their staff. One would have thought that that would have reduced the amount paid in rent. Why in addition they should be paying extra rent for housing these officials I cannot make out.
It is very difficult for private Members to give specific instances of extravagant expenditure. It is so easy to defeat a private Member on a specific instance, although his general contention may be absolutely sound. It is the Department itself that must keep down expenditure within the Department. It is the Department itself that has to deal with specific instances. What is happening under the Ministry of Labour? I refer specially to the Unemployment Insurance side. The Rules and Regulations now issued by the Ministry of Labour are so complicated in character and so stringent that practically no contracting out under the Insurance Act is possible. The Government actuary showed the other day that there ought to be at least 3,000,000 people contracting out under the Act. When a person con tracts out he only costs three-farthings a week, but when he does not contract out he costs 2¾d. a week. If you work that out with a personnel of 3,000,000 you find that you would save £25,000 a week, or £1,250,000 a year; but practically nobody is contracting out, and the reason is that the Regulations now being issued by the Ministry of Labour make it almost impossible for anybody to contract out. I hope the Government will look into that question and try to save a little money in that way. The Ministry of Labour has also got an enormous building programme. I should have thought that this was the
worst time, when building is so costly, to start new building schemes. The increased building estimate is £60,000 over last year. I cannot understand why they should have any building at all. I should have thought that all the heavy work in connection with the Act took place last year, and that all the building schemes would be getting done. There is an expenditure of £170,000 this year for the extension of the Claims and Record Office at Kew; and for a dining room, £30,000; new Employment Exchanges at Liverpool, Newcastle and, Glasgow, over £100,000. All these schemes if they possibly can be postponed—and I am sure a great many of them could be postponed—ought to be postponed until the country can better afford them.
I believe that a great deal of money could also be saved in connection with the Board of Trade. If you take the ordinary services, and not the services arising out of the War, the salaries are £120,000 more than last year. There are 626 more officials than before the War. This is not in connection with services arising out of the War, but in the permanent Department. This year there are increases in a great many Departments over last year. Let me give one item which may be looked upon as rather ridiculous. Last year there were 23 charwomen employed at the Board of Trade in the principal Department; this year there are 44; last year 49 messengers, compared with 55 this year. I merely mention these things to show what I think is the case, that the Government are not doing their best to save every possible halfpenny they can. If you turn to services arising out of the War at the Board of Trade you will find that there are nearly 3,000 officers at the present time, including over 1,000 in the Food Department. We had fondly hoped that the Food Department had gone, but the Food Department has not gone, and so far as I can see there is no chance of its going. The Food Department, so far as I can understand it, has merely been taken over in its entirety by the Board of Trade. I shall have to drop practically all these notes of details, because, though very important, I must cut them short. They will have to be raised on the Estimates as they come up. I trust, however, that these give the total of the Civil Service Estimates. I hope that the Government are not coming down with an
enormous quantity of Supplementary Estimates in addition. We know that they are coming down with one Supplementary Estimate, an Estimate of £5,000 for a Minister without Portfolio.
I see a note on page 13 that there is to be a saving of £5,000 a year through doing away with the salary of the Minister without Portfolio, but now I understand that this is to be changed, and that we are to have an estimate with regard to him. Last financial year we had Supplementary Estimate after Supplementary Estimate. There was an enormous Supplementary Estimate, for raising the salary of civil servants, for over £500,000, in addition to the War bonus. The Treasury pointed out that the only reason that they agreed to that Vote was that it was going to be met out of savings in the Departments. The savings amounted to £300,000, but the increased cost, quite apart from War bonus, was £250,000. It is not fair to other people outside the-Civil Service that these salaries should be increased so enormously at present. Civil servants have got security of tenure and pensions, and they ought to take their fair share of the bad times after the War. The Departments know that they can afford to disregard the original Estimates, and they come down to this House when they want to spend more. The vice does not end there, because they come and ask for money which they have actually spent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the other day that out of the money actually asked for in the Supplementary Estimates, over £11,000,000 had already been spent, and he said that that large sum was allowed to be spent on account of what he called the Civil Contingencies Fund Act. He said that that Act was passed purely for the purposes of the War. I suggest that it should now be repealed, and that it ought not to be legal to spend money unless with the authority of Parliament. It is a wrong principle that a Department should be allowed to overdraw its account and then come to this House and ask for more money to make it good.
The Government may ask where expense is to be cut down. If I felt that I could have done so properly, I could have gone through these various details and shown where expenditure might be cut down. I hope I have said sufficient to show that there is no doubt that expenditure can be cut down to a very
large extent. Many of the schemes proposed are very good. For instance, the Ministry have proposed many schemes which in themselves are very good, but we cannot afford them. There are lots of private persons who could do with better food, far more holidays and more of the amenities of life, but they cannot afford them and they have got to do without them. The Prime Minister wrote, I think in an article in a paper, in 1919:
The state of the national finances is such that only what is indispensable to sound administration should be maintained. We must be willing to content ourselves with the second best if the best is too costly.
That is true to-day. Unless the Government make up their mind to deal with this question, the crushing burden of taxation is bound to continue and the problem of unemployment will never be relieved. I hope that the Government, in their answer, will not blame the House. It is not the fault of the House of Commons. To-day the Executive is all-powerful. This is almost the weakest House of Commons in influence over the Executive that has existed for the last 100 years. It is the business of the Government to advise the House of Commons. If private Members of whatever party suggest expenditure, it is the business of the Government, if they think it wrong, to refuse that expenditure, and if those Members are strong enough to beat them, then it is the business of the Government to resign. This expenditure is not the fault of the House of Commons. It is the fault of the Government, because up to now the Government have not been strong enough in answering the demands of the various Departments. We have got a Committee on National Expenditure with a very able chairman and very able members, who present most valuable reports, but that is not nearly enough. They present these reports and nothing is done. I do not believe that we shall ever do any good until we can get a strict system of rationing the Government. I believe that my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) was the first public man who made that proposal.
Let us have an independent Commission of persons who can look into the whole matter of national finance, a commission appointed by the Government to advise what the country can afford on expenditure. I do not for a moment suggest that
that Commission should dictate to the Government. The Government in the last resort must be itself responsible, but if that Commission is composed of experts, of men who can be relied on, then the Government ought to ration itself down to the figure proposed by such a Commission. Of course, if a national emergency arose the Government would only have to come to this House, and if they made good their case they would get the money straight away. My Noble Friend made another suggestion, not only that the Government should ration itself to a definite maximum figure, but it ought to ration every single one of the Departments. I believe that that would have the effect of making every responsible official in the Departments careful to see that money was spent only on necessities. It would make these responsible officials also think twice before embarking on new schemes and make them look ahead instead of doing things in a hurry at twice the expense. The Amendment which I have put down has been drawn with this object alone. I believe that this kind of scheme is the only kind which will ensure reduction of expenditure and the introduction of a system of rigid economy into every Department of State.

Mr. MOSLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
When I was asked by my hon. Friend to second this Motion, I sought diligently through the speeches and writings of contemporaneous authorities for some quotations with which to substantiate my argument, to mitigate, if possible, in some degree the impertinence of a novice such as myself addressing this House on the subject of high finance. I found myself in a certain difficulty in this work, for by far the most happy pronouncements from my point of view were to be found in the speeches and writings of my hon. Friend (Lieut.-Commander Young) who will reply for the Government from the Treasury Bench. I anticipate that to-day he will develop an equal facility in destroying the arguments which I shall strive to advance, but that will not be in any way destructive of the purpose of this discussion. My hon. Friend who moved the Motion pointed out that we do not desire in any way to lay down a doctrinaire dogma of finance, or in any way to insist that the remedies we advance are the only methods by which this precarious situation can
be met. All we desire is to evoke from the Government a reasoned contravention, if possible, of our gloomy view of the situation, and, further, a definite proposal for the re-establishment of sound conditions of finance.
During my brief period in this House the chief lament which I have heard from the lips of hon. Members has been that Parliament to-day no longer exercises that close supervision and control over public finance which prevailed in the past. It is only with the object of discovering some means by which this House may occupy once again the position which it occupied in the past as custodian of the public purse that I take part in this Debate. As to the serious nature of the financial situation, there are many authorities whom I could quote It is only necessary to read very briefly excerpts from one or two of the speeches of chairmen of leading banks at the beginning of this year, who emphasised very clearly the character of the situation in the view of their banks. I will be very brief and will refer only to two. Mr. Walter Leaf, at the annual meeting of the London County, Westminster, and Parr's Bank on the 3rd of February last, said:
The pressure of taxation is such that savings are seriously diminished. That is the real reason of the diminution of credits. It is mainly in the direction of Government retrenchment that we must look for the possibility of restoration of our resources.
Mr. McKenna, on the 28th January last, at the meeting of the London City and Midland Bank, said:
In consequence of the trade depression there will be a great decline in the national revenue without any diminution in the permanent liabilities of the Government, who will be obliged to increase taxation or to borrow. In the present overburdened condition of the country, however, new taxes can only be met by traders borrowing from the banks, and it will follow that whether by the Government or by the taxpayers recourse will be had to bank loans, and credit inflation will ensue.
5.0 P.M.
He goes on to say that the only way to secure deflation is that of economy by the Government. I will not weary the House by reading extracts from the speeches of any more banking authorities. My hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Young), who now sits upon the Treasury Bench, is well aware that at the beginning of this year nearly all the leading bankers ascribed the present condition of
industry in a large measure, and the financial position of the country primarily, to the taxation of the Government, and they held that it could be very seriously reduced. This opinion can be substantiated to a large extent, if not quite definitely, by a consideration of the actual figures which are available. They form some guide in ascertaining the taxable capacity of the country. It is frequently argued that it is impossible to ascertain what is to-day the taxable capacity of the country. I think it can be discovered, or approximately discovered, by a very simple process of reasoning. To define the taxable capacity of any country, it will be universally admitted that the taxable capacity is represented by the surplus of production over individual consumption. Before the War our annual Budget was some £200,000,000, and it was estimated, almost unanimously by economic authorities, that the annual saving of the community, which was utilised annually for the replenishment of capital, amounted to £400,000,000, making in all a surplus of production over consumption of £600,000,000. If we assume, for the purpose of argument, that the margin remains the same and we translate £600,000,000, pre-War, into present monetary value, assuming pounds sterling before the War to be worth about two-and-one-third times the present value, we find to-day a surplus of production over consumption amounting to £1,400,000,000 a year, upon the assumption that the margin remains the same. Having arrived at that figure, we have to consider what factors to-day are likely to achieve an increase or a decrease in that margin. There are many factors which point towards a probable decrease.
Firstly, it is estimated that our production to-day is only some 80 per cent. of our pre-War production. Secondly, it is generally recognised that the consumption of the country as a whole has gone up; the standard of living is higher and we are probably consuming more to-day than we consumed before the War. Thirdly, before the War a substantial proportion of our national income arose from the interest on our foreign investments. Those have vanished and to-day we are faced with a foreign indebtedness and a prospect of paying interest on that indebtedness for many years to come. Lastly, there are other factors. The rates
of the country have to be considered before we can form an estimate of its taxable capacity. They have doubled since the pre-War period and to-day are approximately £150,000,000 a year, or very nearly as much as our total pre-War Budget. All those factors tend to a diminution of our pre-War margin of production over consumption, and it is obvious that if we are to estimate the taxable capacity of the country we must subtract a substantial sum from the £1,400,000,000 pre-War margin represented in the present monetary value. It was in view of those considerations, I believe, that Mr. McKenna estimated the present taxable capacity of the country. He said not very long ago:
For my own part I believe that examination will show that a Budget of £1,000,000,000 is as much as the nation can possibly carry at the present time, and that even this figure would not leave a sufficient margin for the increase of capital necessary for the reconstruction and development of our industry.
If we allow our pre-War sum for the replenishment of capital to-day at the present monetary value, we should require very nearly £900,000,000 a year. That subtracted from the £1,400,000,000 leaves just over £500,000,000 to meet the annual Budget. Of course that is impracticable, and we have to lower our standard of annual capital replenishment. But it is evident that, allowing practically nothing for the annual replenishment of capital (which is vital to industry) the taxable capacity of this country cannot be much more than £1,000,000,000 a year. From the Estimates already adduced it is evident that the next Budget must amount to nearly £1,100,000,000. If the sum of £110,000,000 is allowed for debt redemption, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer adumbrated on a former occasion, the Budget must amount to over £1,100,000,000. If my estimates are anything like correct they demonstrate that the nation to-day must be paying a certain portion of its taxes out of capital, and that no sum whatsoever is available in the form of savings for the annual replenishment of capital. That opinion is vividly illustrated by the fact that most of the leading bankers have recently stated that many people are borrowing from the banks to pay their taxes, and are, in fact, paying them eventually out of capital. An hon. Member (Colonel Wedgwood) reminds me that many people have in the past borrowed from their
bankers to pay their taxes, but they have not done it in anything like the present degree, and to-day, apparently, it is almost a universal habit or is followed extensively. It is a very serious condition of affairs and requires no emphasis in this Debate. I shall be very happy if these figures can be entirely refuted by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. A consideration of them demonstrates, if they are approximately correct, that the taxable capacity of the country is to-day being exceeded, and that the direst financial retribution is liable to descend upon us in the very near future.
I ask the House for a few minutes to consider the present system of taxation from another standpoint, already touched upon in this Debate and originally advanced by the late Leader of the House. As the Mover of the Amendment said, the late Leader of the House arrived at an estimate upon the following basis. He took the pensions and the debt charges, which aggregate the sum of £450,000,000 a year, and he added to them the total pre-War Budget, multiplied two-and-a-half times, making a sum of £500,000,000, and thus arrived at a total Budget of £950,000,000. For the purpose of argument, I will assume that the proper increase in the cost of running this country should be the 150 per cent, laid down by the late Leader of the House, and in the light of that criterion I will turn to the Civil Service Estimates for this year, from which I subtract the pensions charge. The Civil Service Estimates in 1913–14 amounted to £53,901,000, and the Estimates this year, minus pension charges, amount to £267,477,982, or an increase of some 377 per cent.—not 150 per cent, as laid down by the late Leader of the House, but 377 per cent. two and a half years after the end of the War, when the index figure for the increased cost of living is round about 130 per cent. If the Army is taken, an increase is shown, not of 150 per cent, over the figures of 1913–14, but of 270 per cent. I have many figures which I could give to demonstrate the effect of this finance upon the industrial position of the country, but I will do no more than read a few percentages. Let us take a comparison of our trade figures between the year 1920 and the year 1913. We find that our imports were 11.6 per cent, less in 1920 than in 1913; our exports were 29.1 per cent, less; our re-exports 10 per cent. less. The figures are also especially
noteworthy in the export of goods wholly or mainly manufactured, where a very substantial diminution is shown in 1920 compared with 1913. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is far better acquainted than I am with the present financial position of the country and is fully familiar with the very ominous facts of the case. Although he will probably argue that they have nothing to do with the financial system of the present Government, a very direct relationship can be traced between excessive taxation and industrial depression.
While I fully admit that this country is facing at the moment difficulties which are not entirely attributable to taxation, I think it will be admitted that the present taxation, exceeding as it does the taxable capacity of the country, is largely responsible. The lesson of all this seems to be that our present system of national finance has failed. The machine is inadequate for its task and has broken down. It is failing to grapple with a difficult and dangerous situation and some radical innovation must be devised. There are as at present constituted three main checks upon expenditure. The first is within the spending Departments themselves, the second is in the Treasury, and the third is in Parliament. Take the first. Anyone who has had any acquaintance with the inner working of these Departments is well aware of the absolute dependence of the political chiefs upon Civil Service subordinates. Even in the old days this was so, and in the infinite ramifications and the multitudinous and diverse duties of the modern Department, the rule becomes increasingly correct. Today the political chiefs are entirely and absolutely dependent on their subordinates. The danger of the situation is increased because we have not got altogether the old type of civil servants. There are many admirable civil servants, many very estimable people. Some of the temporary officials may undoubtedly realise only too well that a cessation of the activities of their Department means also the closure of their own employment. Then again, it is often the very best type of civil servant who is more responsible than any other for spending money unnecessarily, because the best type is actuated by a profound belief in the importance of his own Department, to the detriment of his vision
of the general situation. The type of man who is really keen, who is immersed in his work, and who is longing to initiate beneficent schemes will always use the most powerful arguments for the proposals which he lays before the Minister, and which the Minister ultimately lays before this House. It is always easy for the Department to bamboozle the Minister, and it is still easier for the Minister to bamboozle the House of Commons with the arguments supplied to him from his Department. So long as we continue viewing projects for expenditure, not from the standpoint of whether we can afford them or not, but from the standpoint of whether they are desirable or not, we are bound to find ourselves faced with incontrovertible arguments for the expenditure of tremendous sums on projects which are usually useful, but which are bringing financial ruin upon the country.
The second check upon finance is the check of the Treasury. The Treasury, as hon. Members are aware, is largely the offspring of Mr. Gladstone's ideas, and was devised to meet conditions totally different from those which prevail to-day. In those days, when the annual Budget was considerably under £200,000,000, there was no chance of our annual expenditure exceeding our taxable capacity. In comparison, the activities of the Departments were far smaller. There was more time for the consideration of the very few new projects which were advanced, and an expert Treasury staff was available who were familiar with the inner workings of the Department, and had ample time and opportunity to consider in detail all the projects laid before them. How very different are the conditions to-day. The Treasury staff is not materially larger than before the War. An expert staff to meet the new situation is certainly not available. Further the old Treasury outlook is really inadequate for this situation for the Treasury official was schooled in the belief that proposals for expenditure must be considered solely from the standpoint of their desirability. It is really a new outlook that is required for these matters, an outlook not in accordance with the original Treasury traditions, though I am well aware these have been considerably modified to meet the present position. The last check of all is Parliament. The inadequacy of this has been conclusively demonstrated during the past few months.
Supplementary Estimates to the extent of over £100,000,000 have been produced in the course of the current year. A great deal of the money had already been spent. Hon, Members were fully aware that the country could not afford the spending of that money, but on every single occasion they were confronted with irresistible arguments in favour of the expenditure, and, while fully conscious that the country could not afford it, they were obliged to vote for it. Parliament always finds itself defeated in detail. To begin with, we are all economists, but we all want to economise on somebody else. For my part, I should probably like to begin to economise on what are called military adventures, and on things like red uniforms for soldiers. Others would start to economise on education or hospitals. In the course of these Debates each Member advances his own individual view, and the representative of the Government points first to one and then to another, and says quite rightly that our proposals are conflicting, and argues that this factor constitutes in itself an absolute excuse for the Government doing nothing at all. So nothing at all is effected and the economists are played off one against the other. The system of the Treasury check and the old Parliamentary control has largely ceased to operate, and its failure has resulted in a very serious situation in which we find ourselves to-day.
I do not wish to stress the latter part of my argument. I want rather to refer to my opening remarks, when I endeavoured to demonstrate that the taxable capacity of the country was to-day being exceeded, and in the light of those facts to ask the Government to advance their own proposals for the re-establishment of some real check upon the expenditure of this country. Personally I agree with my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, that the only real way to curtail our expenditure is to adopt the advice often given to individuals and to cut our coat according to our cloth. I think a Commission of Experts should be constituted to advise upon the taxable capacity of the country, and having regard to that figure—which should not be exceeded nor even taxed up to—the Government should formulate their proposals, and then it would be open to hon. Members of this House who have alternative proposals, to put them forward,
always keeping within the limit laid down. That is really in my view the only conceivable way in which this House can reassert its old control over the public purse. There may be another way, and a better way. I hope my hon. Friend when he comes to reply will advance his proposal. In view of the statements which are available from leading bankers of this country, and the almost unanimous opinion of leading economists, it really can be demonstrated that to-day the financial position of this country is exceedingly precarious. Our old system is failing entirely, and the moment has arrived when we must have a new system, an unprecedented system, to meet a situation which is without parallel in the financial history of the country.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Commander Hilton Young): I am sure hon. Members will realise the diffidence with which I follow in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend who now holds the office of President of the Board of Trade. His abilities and his wide range of knowledge are such as those who come after him cannot hope to rival. This at least they can hope to do, to seek to imitate his unfailing assiduity and unfailing courtesy. It is with that desire I rise in this Debate, and not to rebut in antagonistic terms the extremely moderate and reasoned criticisms which have been put forward by the Mover of this Amendment and by the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley), who seconded. In the course of their speeches they have swept rather widely over the field, and they have touched upon many subjects which would be more properly discussed in a Budget Debate than in a Debate on Civil Estimates. To cover the whole field of national expenditure and revenue is hardly proper to this occasion. I, at any rate, will not attempt to deal with some of the aspects of this question which have been raised, because I could not do so without anticipating the Budget discussion, which would be neither desirable nor seemly on my part. Nor indeed can I attempt with any utility in the course of this Debate to reply to those more detailed criticisms on the economy and expenditure of various Departments which have been advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). The reply to those criticisms in detail must necessarily come
from the Departments themselves. The aspect of the criticisms to which I desire more particularly to address myself is the criticism directed against the Civil Estimates and the remedies proposed for the alleged extravagance in that direction. I would only suggest that, as has been stated here, all Members of this House are economists, all are interested in the same cause, so far as that is concerned, and there are no two parties on that subject. We must consider, however, that there are two sorts of criticism: the sort of criticism which is useful and the sort of criticism which is not. The criticism that is useful takes due regard of what has actually been done in the direction desired. The other sort of criticism—which really puts back the cause we are all desirous of advancing—thunders denunciation, interferes with whatever reforms might have been expected, and, as it were, shuts the gates of mercy upon the economiser. That only tends to produce, as it were, a sense of desperation in the unfortunate economiser, which does not tend towards the continuance of his admirable work in the right spirit.
What has been done in this direction? Let me deal with what we are properly concerned with only in this particular Debate, and that is the Civil Service Estimates. I shall attempt with a very few figures to demonstrate to this House that a great deal has been effected already. I recognise a feeling almost of a sense of despair in the utterances of the Mover and Seconder of this Motion, and I believe that is due entirely to the fact that they were not aware of what has been done to meet their desires already. The total Civil Estimates of this year amount to £379,000,000, and that is a total reduction on last year of £155,000,000. The reduction in the two years 1920–21 and 1921–22 is no less than £264,000,000 on the Civil Estimates, and I think it is impossible that anybody who sees those figures should not begin at any rate to suspect that there may be, in spite of prejudices held, a very considerable economy effected. Let us see how we stand now. Already in this year 1921–22 our Estimates on strict comparison amount to less than the Estimates that were given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, for his normal year. The
comparison there must be made omitting all transitory and special war charges. The Estimate for the Civil Services in the normal year on that basis was £305,000,000; omitting the transitory charges, we have already attained to a figure of £289,000,000, or £16,000,000 less than the Estimate for the normal year.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is that the first or the second normal year?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The third.

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: The final figure was £305,000,000 for a normal year. These figures need, no doubt, a further examination, which, with the patience of the House, I shall attempt to give them, but one cannot see them without seeing that there is cause for a preliminary presumption that there has been a great achievement towards economy. I know that it has been said by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson)—and it will be said again—that these are Estimates, and what guarantee can we have that they will not be falsified again by Supplementary Estimates? Of course, it is a commonplace of finance that for regularity and economy the first essential rule is to maintain with the greatest possible degree of rigidity the first Estimate as laid down, that the Supplementary Estimate is always an evil and sometimes an unnecessary evil, but I will call attention to this fact, that there has been, since the beginning of the return to financial normality, a progressive decrease in Supplementary Estimates. In 1919–20 they were £124,000,000 and in 1920–21 £52,000,000, or a decrease of more than half. There is every reason in common sense to expect and believe that that progressive decrease will be maintained. The great increase in the percentage of Supplementaries was clearly due to the break-up of the ordinary system of estimating caused by the Vote of Credit system, in the first place, and the tightening up of the screws of the old system has taken time with the return after the War to normality. In the second place, the chief disturbing element has been the great variations in the value of money and in prices. Those may be expected gradually to become less extreme in their variations. For those two reasons, there is every reasonable-prospect in looking ahead to think that
the progressive decrease in the percentage of Supplementary Estimates may be relied on to continue.
I would ask the House to fix their attention upon this figure of £155,000,000 of reduction in the Civil Service Estimates for this year on last year. That is the gross measure of the attainment of economy on the Civil Estimates. How is it made up? Of course, it is made up as to by far the greater part, by a cessation of transitory war services; that is in the nature of the case at present. The transitory war services have decreased in this year in comparison with last year by no less than £150,700,000, so that of the £155,000,000, all but £4,300,000 in the reduction is due to the cessation of transitory war services. The exploit of the reduction in the permanent ordinary services of £4,000,000 may not be great, but it is encouraging. It is, as it were, the turn of the tide for economy, that this year it is possible to make this reduction of £4,000,000 on the permanent ordinary services in the Civil Service Estimates. So important is it that I think it is desirable that I should give the House one further analysis of how that £4,000,000 is composed. As the House will expect, it is a composite balance of decreases against increases. The principal decreases in the permanent and ordinary services are the decrease on war pensions of £11,000,000 in comparison with last year, a very interesting decrease due for the greater part to the possibility now of making closer estimates as to what the amount will be; then such a decrease as the decrease in the Welsh Church grant, and the fact that nothing is required this year for the Development Fund. These decreases on the permanent and ordinary services mount up to £18,700,000. Against those there are, of course, various increases to be set, and I would ask the special attention of the House to the nature of the increases on this year's Civil Estimates. They are, education, £7,600,000; unemployment fund contributions, £2,600,000; health and housing, £2,600,000; Royal Irish Constabulary, £1,000,000; and others, £600,000; thus making £14,400,000 to be set against the £18,700,000 of decrease, giving us our £4,300,000 of savings on the ordinary services this year.
The point to which I wish to call attention is this I know there is both inside and outside the House in some
minds a somewhat vague idea that the increases in expenditure are spread over a great elaboration of small services and go into the pockets of civil servants. If there, is anything in this little analysis which I have ventured to give—and I believe it is really the root of the matter—it will be seen that the increases which cost us the balance of £14,000,000 which we should otherwise have saved this year are not gone in a general distribution over small scattered services, which might be said to be wasted, and they are not going into the pockets of civil servants as individuals, except in the single case of the Royal Irish Constabulary, an expenditure which has been made in this House certainly not with disapproval. For the rest, these increases are going to the three great national services of education, unemployment, and health and housing. That, I say, is the actual achievement this year in the direction of economy on the Civil Estimates, a total saving of £155,000,000 in comparison with the year before, of which £4,000,000 is absolutely due to a cutting down of permanent and ordinary services; but now, if I follow the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Wood Green and those who agree with him, they will not be content with a comparison with last year and the showing of a saving there, but will say that even so we are spending too much on the Civil Estimates. Let me take the standard which he himself has suggested, and, if I may venture upon that degree of reminiscence, it is the standard which I remember myself suggesting upon one occasion from the Bench close to where he now sits—that is, the standard of the pre-War expenditure upon the Civil Services. That, I believe, will give the most common-sense guidance as to whether the Civil Service Estimates for this year are unduly swollen or extravagant or not, and, of course, it will require to apply to it an examination of some carefulness.
I hesitate to fatigue the House with the figures necessary, but I think I will venture to do so, because I sincerely believe it is impossible to get a true view upon this comparison with the pre-War standard without a really careful examination of the figures. The hon. Member for Wood Green has arrived at the result that there is an expenditure in this year of three and a quarter times the
pre-War standard. I shall be able to show, I think, that that is very much too big, and that the comparison will show that this year the expenditure is very much less in comparison with the pre-War standard.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Leaving out all war services?

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: Yes. I will adopt the hon. Member's method of approaching the matter by cutting off from this year all that it is necessary to exclude in order to arrive at a true comparison with the year 1914–15, which is the last, year in which there were pre-War Estimates. The things to be excluded are temporary War services, to which he has referred; also those permanent, or semi-permanent, charges which have been left upon the country as a result of the War, I mean the War pensions. In the third place, we must cut out certain special, abnormal charges which exist at the present time, and which were not in existence in the year 1914–15. In the fourth place, we must remember to make allowance for new charges which have been thrown upon the Exchequer by fresh legislation since that time. Then we must surely make some allowance for the normal growth of the population and the general expenditure of the country since then. Last, and certainly not least, we must allow for the fall in the value of money. War charges may be estimated very closely indeed, as they are estimated this year for the first time on the Civil Service Estimates at £89,700,000. That reduces our figure from £379,000,000 to £289,300,000. I am including in that allowances to ex-service men £16,000,000, and the liquidation of the Railway and Canal Agreements, put very approximately at £30,000,000—certainly a very safe item. Next we come to the permanent, or semi-permanent, War charges left upon the country by the War. Those may be estimated very closely at £119,300,000. Of course, by far the most important item is War pensions, which are this year £111,500,000. I would mention also the Housing Subsidy to the local authorities, £5,500,000. This £119,300,000 reduces our figure of £379,000,000 to £170,000,000.

Lord R. CECIL: The two together reduce it?

Lieut-Commander YOUNG: Yes, Let me continue. The abnormal charges for the present year are a difficult item to estimate, though they are a fair item to allow. I estimate them at £4,000,000. The principal item is £2,000,000 for the Royal Irish Constabulary. The last charge of this sort to allow is also very difficult to estimate. It is new charges for legislation in the course of this year. Those may be estimated on a very conservative basis, leaving out every doubtful item, at £12,500,000 more now than in 1914–15. The principal items are: Police Grants for England and Scotland, £7,500,000; and Health Grants, £2,000,000. These two further charges, £12,500,000 and £4,000,000 for the new legislation charges, and the abnormal charges, will finally reduce our figure of £379,000,000 to £153,500,000, so that if you are going to apply this pre-War standard of the year 1914–15 to see whether the Civil Service Estimates this year are extravagant, or in excess of that standard, then you will find that you have to compare with the figure for 1914–15, which was £59,000,000, the figure in the present year of £153,500,000. There are two other considerations which the House will observe it is necessary to consider—the allowance for abnormal growth in the population and the expenditure of the country. To get some idea of that, the only way is to take the normal growth in the expenditure of the country for seven years, say, before 1914–15, and see at that rate of growth to what the expenditure for 1914–15 would have grown at this time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do you base it on population or wealth?

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: The rate of growth of the Civil Service Estimates. At that rate of growth, the Civil Estimates for this year would have grown from £59,000,000 to £87,000,000. I might at once say that it is fair then to compare the corrected figure of £153,000,000, this year's Estimate, with £87,000,000 for the corrected figure of 1914–15. But I do not think that extreme approximation of the two figures would be a scientific or a fair one, because in those last years, in which the period of growth would have taken place, there would have been undoubtedly fresh legislation and growth of abnormal charges. I think, therefore, it would be more fair and more scientific to compare this increased figure of £87,000,000 of the
year 1914–15 with our own reduced figure of £170,000,000, not allowing for the new legislation expenses or the expenses of the special, abnormal causes. If we take those two figures as our final comparison, we cannot get a just view of the comparison unless we take those corrections, and, taking those corrections, we find that the total increase of expenditure on the Civil Service Estimates for the year 1921–22 at £170,000,000, compared with the corrected figure of £87,000,000, for the year 1914–15, the increase is less than 100 per cent. The index number for the rise in wholesale prices for comparison is at the present time about 90 per cent., so that you find the actual increase, on a just comparison between our Civil Estimates this year and 1914–15, is just what would be expected to result from the fall in the value of money and the increase in prices.
Let me turn from that aspect of the matter to deal very briefly indeed with the actual wording of the Amendment to-day. My hon. Friend laid some stress, but not very much stress, at the close of his observations, in urging the Government "to lay down a definite policy for the limitation of national expenditure to an amount dependent on national income," and that is the Amendment to which the House is asked to assent. That is, I suppose, as near an approach as can be made by those who have to formulate the Amendment, on behalf of their supporters, towards a practical system of rationing, and I want to ask the House to see what is the practical possibility of dealing with this as an effective and a businesslike system of imposing a supreme and fresh check upon national expenditure. The theory, as I understand it, is that a fixed sum is to be laid down in relation to the total amount of 'the national income. What does that mean? I think nothing is better known than that it is perfectly impossible to arrive either at any statistics to enable you to calculate the national income or, if you got statistics which might begin to serve as a basis, to construct upon them a reasonable theory as to what relation there should be between that income and the Government expenditure. The initial difficulty is the difficulty of setting values in a fluctuating market. How, for instance, could you at any given moment examine the national income during this long period of rapidly fluctuating prices?

Mr. MOSLEY: Is it not a fact that at the Brussels Conference our own representative advanced an estimate?

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: Let me take an estimate which has been put forward. I believe it to be totally illusory, for this reason, among many others, that it totally disregards that very large section of national expenditure, namely, the expenditure in the redemption of debt which is not withdrawn from capital available for savings, but is returned for savings. There is another circumstance which makes the particular estimate referred to totally illusory. It is that another large element in national expenditure, interest on debt, is paid out in the form, of incomes which are themselves liable to taxation. Failure to allow for these two circumstances makes the particular estimate in question, I believe, totally illusory. Other estimates have been made by authorities even greater than those to which my hon. Friend has referred, increasing that estimate of £1,000,000,000 to a figure as big as £1,500,000,000. I believe all equally unsafe as a practical guide, and that to bring imaginative, speculative figures, open to continuous controversy and grave doubt, into relation with such a hard and fast, and practical and vital, matter as the figure we ought to put upon the Budget and the Estimates would be a practical absurdity.
6.0 P.M.
Now let me ask what it is really proposed that the House should do by a system of rationing. As I venture to argue, figures are not available, and theories are not available, to enable you to bring the speculative estimate as to the total national income into relation with the hard and fast facts of expenditure. But it may be said, "Cannot you, by taking a general look round, achieve this purpose?" It might be done, but if it were, not done with a regard for what was actually essential for the services of the State, there would be no reason to suppose it would have any relation whatever to what those services required. If it happened to be just as much as the State required during that year, well and good. What would happen if it were otherwise is that either it would be more than the Rationing Committee fixed, or than the State required, and so would be a straight indication to the State Departments to spend more than
they needed; or it would be less than required by the State. What then could be more fatal than to impose an impossible limit upon the expenditure of Departments, and so oblige the break-up of the original limit imposed upon the year's estimate and budgeted for, so making a Supplementary Estimate a necessity and impossible to be avoided? No, the practice of any reasonable tribunal, of any reasonable body, whether it be this House, or other Committee or Commission appointed to consider the matter, could only in practice arrive at a method of rationing Departments by considering the actual needs of the Departments, and by fixing a sum. That is the process which would have to be gone through. It must be done upon evidence of requirements, and if it were so done, how does it differ from what we are doing now?
That is exactly the old-established and present system upon which our finances are regulated. The Departments are rationed by the votes in the Estimates, by the Government in agreement upon the amount in the Estimates; the House considers those Estimates and rations the Departments by imposing the amounts in the Estimates. That is the process now carried out. It could not be carried out without considering the evidence from the Departments as to what is necessary to their requirements. When you have admitted that, you find the very system you have at present. Let me ask the House this: Supposing you attempted to do something more and to made a sort of super-law, higher than even the financial traditions and sanctions than we have at present, and say, "No Department must spend more than the amount originally voted in the course of the year," except under some extreme pain and penalty which has yet to be devised. What prospect would there be of your really being able to make such an arrangement? Consider what has happened in the course of the past week. Let me ask how any rigid question of rationing, more rigid than at present, upon certain Departments would have been able to survive the recent great emergency, and similar emergencies which may occur in the future?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It would have stopped you mobilising the reserves against the working classes.

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: The only result it must have in such cases would be to stop the Government of the country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Stop this Government!

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: Let me conclude by referring to the final question asked by the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley). What, he asked, was proposed by the Government of any form or method of improving control over expenditure both in the House of Commons and in the Government? In the historical account he developed in the matter and method of control, I would remind the House of one very important element to which no reference was made; that was the growth in the system of control outside, the Treasury but inside the offices and supplementary to the great growth in the administration of the business of the country. No account of the modern system of checks and controls of expenditure could possibly be complete which did not lay very great emphasis upon this great increase in the direction of control which has been devised inside the Departments themselves, in many cases, in order to supplement the administrative control generally.
I have laid the principal emphasis upon two things—upon the fact that there has been a great achievement, in round fiugres, in the actual expenditure in the Civil Service Estimates this year in comparison with preceding Estimates. In the second place, I have taken up what might be called the friendly challenge of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson) as to the comparison with pre-War years. I would draw the attention of the House to various considerations which seem to show that we have already arrived—due allowance being made—at a state of expenditure in these Estimates which shows we are practically back, if not below, the standard of the expenditure for Civil Service purposes of the sort before the War. Let me add that if I have said anything at all in the course of my speech which would give the impression that I do not welcome any possible criticism and every assistance in the effort after economy, I would seek to remove that impression. I do hold now, as always, most firmly the conviction that while much has been achieved in the direction of economy
in the economy campaign carried on by the Government in the course of the last two years, yet much remains to be achieved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] New methods and new directions for economy present themselves, and as the disturbances of the War pass there is no doubt at all that opportunities for further economies will arise. I would seek to connect that, however, with the wider view of the subject. If these economies are delayed, and do not come as fast as could be desired, it is not wholly because of the inability or inefficiency of this, or any other Government, but partly because of the reluctance, and the very natural reluctance, in the public mind fully to face the consequencies of the War. This country is not now so rich a country as before the War. The same things cannot be had for the same money, or as many of them. [An HON MEMBER: "Do without them then!"] It would be to abandon all hope of success in that joint campaign for economy on which we have all embarked if we were not to make up our minds to these circumstances as regards the great co-operative services rendered by the State for the nation. We must be prepared in this direction or in that for sacrifices. An effort should be made to recognise that as the years go on there are sacrifices still to be made by this nation on behalf of the great cause of the Allies, not perhaps so great as those made during the War, but still not less directly connected with the victory of that cause.

Lord R. CECIL: I am sure the House will join with me in congratulating the hon. and gallant Member on the ability and the courtesy he has displayed in discharging his first important official duty in this House. We shall look forward with pleasurable anticipation to many other expositions of the Governmental financial policy from him. It was, perhaps, inevitable that in his first speech he should have taken the rather rigidly official view. He complained that the speeches of several hon. Members were rather depressing and discouraging to those who were anxious in Government circles to save money. I hope he will not think me hypercritical if I venture to say that the repetition of the extreme official view that we really have saved all the money we could save, or ought to save, or, at any rate, that we have saved a very large sum of money and are doing very
well, has perhaps an even more depressing effect than that of excessive criticism. What is the claim of my hon. and gallant Friend, or rather of the Treasury, as to the savings that have been already achieved?
He says we have saved no less than £155,000,000 as compared with last year. When that comes to be examined it appears that £150,000,000 of it are-for transitory War services that are, so to speak, saving themselves. Only £4,000,000 have been saved by economy. When that again comes to be examined it is met by a balance of account by which £11,000,000 are saved—if you are to call it saved—out of War pensions, and £8,000,000 out of some other charges which he did not go into very fully—Welsh Church charges, and what not—and that these again have been met to some extent by some increases in education, unemployment, housing, and the Royal Irish Constabulary. I do not think that is a very encouraging account of the amount of economy that has been carried out last year. I do not know that we should regard War pensions as a subject on which we would be most glad to see economies carried out. On the other hand, there are certain items which we certainly ought to look upon with a great regret, whatever our opinions may be: mainly the extra £1,000,000 spent on the Royal Irish Constabulary. If the £4,000,000 saving is regarded as an adequate contribution to meet the really serious financial position in which we are placed, then, I think, we shall feel that our observations in this House have not yet born fruit in the Government Departments.
In another part of his argument my hon. and gallant Friend says that we have already cut down the Civil Services expenditure to an amount, at any rate, not exceeding—when all possible allowances have been made—the pre-War amount. I confess that I felt less convinced by that portion of my hon. and gallant Friend's argument than I did by the former part. He gays, "Oh, you must take off quite reasonable transport and war charges, and the pensions and all the permanent war charges." But that makes it all the more necessary to save in other respects. I cannot agree with my hon. and gallant Friend at all that he is entitled to take these; to disregard what he
calls the abnormal expenditure. There is always abnormal expenditure every year, and you cannot rely upon there being no abnormal expenditure in any year. It only means that whereas you may spend an extra amount in Ireland in one year you may have to spend an extra amount somewhere else another year and there will always be abnormal expenditure. I cannot admit that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to disregard the expenditure imposed by legislation because the Government is just as responsible for legislation as it is for administration. Neither can I accept the hon. Member's doctrine that he must be prepared for a normal growth of expenditure which he puts at £87,000,000. I do not think that is a sound doctrine. The hon. Gentleman says the expenditure was £59,000,000 in 1914–15 and that normally it would have grown to £87,000,000. If I may say so, I think the last passages of the hon. Gentleman's speech seemed to dispose of that part of his argument.
We have to economise. We cannot allow normal increases to take place. We have to get the expenditure down and not allow it to grow and then say, "There it is, it has grown in the ordinary way." I do not accept in any way the doctrine that the Civil Service expenditure has been reduced to such a sum that, allowing for the change in value of money, we may say that we have got down to the pre-War standard. I should have thought it was common ground that we are spending too much money, and while we are spending so much as this in Civil Service expenditure we must not forget the other immense drains going on upon the resources of the country. There is considerable extra military expenditure. The Army is still some four times as expensive as it was before, and there is no doubt that there is a vastly greater number of civil servants now being employed than were employed before the War. I will not go into the details, but it is rather striking in that connection that although we have abolished three or four Ministries apparently we have not succeeded in abolishing more than a small fraction of the officials employed in those Departments. I do not think there is any real doubt that we are spending too much and that the rates
and taxes are beyond our taxable capacity at the present moment.
The mere fact of the 'warnings from prominent bankers as to the excessive degree to which taxpayers are resorting in borrowing money in order to pay their obligations is conclusive that too much money is being spent. There is no doubt about it. I remember the present Leader of the House last year finishing his speech by saying he had no doubt that we had reached—I believe he said surpassed—the extreme limit of the amount of taxes that ought to be imposed. What I should have been glad to have heard from the Secretary to the Treasury is a more definite acceptance of that position, and of the view which I am sure is very widely held, that some broad effective policy must be adopted in order to reduce expenditure. I want to press upon the Government the necessity of recognising that we are in essentially a new situation financially. It is not the same thing as before the War when there was no doubt that our taxable capacity had not been reached. I do not mean to say that it was not even then desirable that economy should be carried out. I accept the old doctrine generally accepted that all taxes are an evil as far as the prosperity of the country is concerned, and Mr. Gladstone's phrase about "money fructifying in the taxpayer's pocket" is a perfectly sound doctrine, and if you take that money out by taxes you diminish the amount of money available to increase the prosperity of the country.
Although it is true that economy was desirable, then there was nothing like the acuteness of the call for economy that there is now. I think we must start from the proper position that the expenditure is definitely too high, and is producing very serious evils. I have no doubt at all myself, and I do not believe any hon. Member in the House has any doubt, that the recovery of industry is being seriously retarded and impeded by the high amount of taxation. I have not the slightest doubt that important improvements in equipment are being unfortunately put off, and uneconomically put off, by reason of the want of capital. I have no doubt that we are prevented from embarking on equal terms in some cases with foreign competition owing to the difficulty of improving our methods of manufacture through want of capital. I have not the-least doubt that we are being really han-
dicapped in the prosperity of the country by reason of the amount of taxation that is being levied. Under these circumstances I do not think, with all respect to the Government, that the House and the country would have heard with pleasure that they really were prepared to adopt some new system for limiting and checking expenditure.
My hon. Friend spoke more or less with approval of the present system, and he said he thought it was quite impossible to have a fixed amount of expenditure. I want to remind the House of the great evil of the present system. I believe it is bad because it does not secure economy in the total amount of the expenditure of the country, and I believe it is still worse because it encourages extravagance in the Departments. I do not believe that you will ever be able to achieve a great deal of economy or the destruction of waste by inquiries from outside. They are useful because they call the attention of the officials of the Departments to the necessity for avoiding waste, but ultimately the only way you will really avoid waste is by the efforts of the officials themselves. You have to get that point of view adopted by the officials, not least of all by the naval and military officials, but by all the officials of the country. What is the present system? You have a Department putting forward what they regard as the necessary expenditure for the year. That is submitted to the Treasury and they criticise it, and you start from the point of view that you have to find whatever is necessary, however large it may be. My hon. Friend rejects positively the doctrine that you are to say to any Department: "You are not to spend more than a certain amount." He says the Treasury has to consider what is necessary for the State, and then find the money in some way or another.

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: My right hon. Friend is somewhat misinterpreting my remarks. My contention is, that it is impossible to fix a definite limit in the original Estimate beyond which the Department must not spend without considering the representations of the Department as to what they require.

Lord R. CECIL: What does that mean? Does it mean that in point of fact the Treasury will make up its mind what
the country can afford to spend in the first instance, and having done that, will see how much below that will be sufficient? The Departments have to build up a case showing it is necessary to spend here and there, and it is contended that the Treasury can only criticise. That is a very bad system when you really want improvement and serious economy. It is a bad system for several reasons. In the first place, I believe it never will produce a very large diminution of expenditure. In the second place, it is a, bad plan because it is perpetually putting the officials of the spending Departments in opposition to the Treasury, and the result is they will get to regard the Treasury as their natural enemies. It is their business to make out a case, and it is the Treasury's business to destroy it. Broadly speaking that is the attitude. If you proceed on the present system that is inevitable, because each Department has to make out a case for its expenditure.
The Treasury, very rightly, has got the credit of being an extremely able and industrious Department, but it is not manned by super-men, and for them to really examine the details of the expenditure of each Department from beginning to end is quite impossible. What happens is that, if it happens to be an old expenditure, not much is said about it if it has been incurred in previous years. On the other hand, if it is a new expenditure, a great battle immediately takes place. I remember once it being recommended that certain messengers should receive payment for overtime for Sunday work, and it was only a matter of a very few shillings. That matter required a letter from the Treasury, and there was a regular correspondence on the subject. I also remember that a friend of mine told me that he went as Ambassador to a particular post, and by the ordinary custom so much was allowed for the equipment as a matter of course. It happened that his predecessor had only been in office a very few months, and therefore the Embassy did not require this expenditure upon it. The amount was passed as a matter of course, but my friend, being a public-spirited man, called the attention of the Treasury to the matter and returned the sum. It is evident that a system which permits anything of that kind is necessarily ineffective. It means practically that all new expenditure is
suspect and that all old expenditure comes before the Treasury with a strong case. But it is very often the new expenditure which is right and the old expenditure which is wrong. Unless the Department is convinced that the new expenditure ought to be sanctioned it is very difficult to get it passed. There has to be a very strong case made out for it.
My hon. Friend asked how it was possible to fix what ought to be the expenditure of the State, and he said, speaking with the authority of his position, that no Estimates of national income are really trustworthy. I dare say they are not perfectly trustworthy, but I have not the slightest doubt, if my hon. Friend got a small committee of really expert economists to go into this matter he would receive very great assistance in arriving at what was the amount the country could really afford to spend. He himself would be one of the best of the experts. After all, sooner or later, we shall have to settle that. We cannot go on allowing expenditure to increase indefinitely. There must come a time sooner or later when it will be no use telling us a thing is necessary. If we cannot afford it we must sooner or later say so, and we must have a fixed outside limit beyond which the expenditure of the country should not go. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits, as was done last year, that we have nearly reached or even got beyond the limit of what is actually possible, he must mean something. He must have arrived at that opinion somehow. It shows that there is a figure which could be fixed as to what is the taxable capacity of the country. I am convinced, therefore, in spite of the observations of my hon. Friend, that it is possible to fix in the first place, under proper advice, a limit beyond which expenditure should not go. That does not mean that we ought to spend to the full limit of our taxable capacity, but taking that taxable capacity as one fact and taking the demands of all Departments as another fact the Treasury could, I am satisfied, fix an amount at the beginning beyond which the Budget ought not to go.
It is asked, if you have anything like this coal strike, or some similar sudden emergency, what are you to do? Of course, you must be reasonable people, and to meet some sudden emergency you must have some emergency power, but
it ought to be hedged around with the strictest precautions. It ought not to be allowed without the special permission of this House, and that special permission should not be granted until the whole finances of the country have been taken under review in the House in relation to this special additional expenditure. I do not say that the system can be made absolutely cast iron; that is impossible; but a great deal could be done. I attach just as much importance to fixing an amount for each Department. I am sure that is in some respects the most important part of the proposal, because it means that you will give to each Department beforehand a definite figure, beyond which it must not go, and a definite indication that it must economise in every way it can. It must make the sum go as far as it can be made to go for the purposes of the Department. I am satisfied that would be a far safer way of dealing with expenditure than any system we have now. I ask the Government not to treat this as merely a matter for discussion here, or as a matter to be settled by old Departmental and historic prejudices. The situation is really very serious. We must economise. My hon. Friend will agree that we must do that if we desire to accelerate the recovery of the prosperity of this country.
Let me remind him of certain broad facts. We were originally told that the normal expenditure of the year ought to be £880,000,000. That was the first figure put forward by the present Leader of the House. Later on it was extended to £945,000,000. Then we heard something of the figure of £1,000,000,000, and this year's Estimate, I understand, approaches £1,038,000,000, which does not include the emergency expenditure occasioned by the strike or make any allowance for the reduction of debt. It is evident that the expenditure will go up to £1,100,000,000, and possibly £1,200,000,000, this year. It is a figure which must be reduced somehow, and if the Government are not prepared to accept the suggestions which we have made of rationing the expenditure of the country, and of rationing the Departments, then it is really important that they should announce a definite and complete policy of economy and put it before the House without delay—I hope in the next Budget. It is no use saying we have an old system which has worked very well. It is no use saying that all
that is necessary is to apply old methods, and to apply, them more thoroughly. We have to face a novel situation with which we have not been faced, at any rate, for more than a century in this country, and to meet that situation we must have new methods. If we do not, the prosperity of the country will suffer, and the Government will suffer also.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is a fortunate fact that while the destinies of the country are being decided elsewhere the House of Commons is permitted to take up its old prehistoric work of criticising the expenditure of the Government. We are also happy in having a poacher newly and recently turned gamekeeper on the Front Bench. These changes are apt to be rapid, but we have caught very young this newly "gamekeeperised" official, and we may hope on this occasion therefore to produce some effect on the Treasury Bench. I wondered just now if the present position of the hon. Members for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson) and Norwich (Lieut.-Commander Young) had been reversed whether the speeches would not also have been reversed, and if the present Secretary to the Treasury would not have shown himself one of the principal critics of the Government. I hope he will, in spite of his speech this afternoon—a speech so ordinarily provided by Departmental officials—I hope he will, when he really gets into office, do something to make the Treasury what it used to be in the past, and possibly something better. I thought his reply to the hon. Member for Wood Green on this particular subject was extremely weak. The case made out for economy was not based solely on the amount of expenditure as compared with that in pre-War years, but rather on what we can actually spend at the present time, and how we can still further cut down the Estimates. It was based, not on comparison with pre-War years, because then we were a rich people, but on comparison with out present poverty, and it is on those lines we really want to tackle this problem afresh.
The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Wood Green is that there should be a Committee of experts appointed to scrutinise the accounts of each of the Departments and also to decide what is our taxable capacity. Like the Secretary to the Treasury, I am not a great be-
liever in these estimates of taxable capacity and of national income. I know perfectly well that if taxation rises so also does the income of the capitalist rise. We are all capitalists even here on these benches. If you tax us we manage to pass the tax on to the consumer, so that although our taxes are larger our income also appears to be larger and to cover the addition. The enormous increase in this Estimate of national income is easily due to the enormous increase of taxation, which shows itself in the increased gross income. I am not a great believer in these Estimates of national income. Estimates must necessarily vary according to the views and inclinations of the men making them. The other part of the position of the hon. Member for Wood Green is one I am a great believer in. It is one of which I have had some practical experience.
The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) put his finger on the spot when he said that the Treasury, in its good old days, did always scrutinise very carefully any fresh expenditure. When I was there as an under-strapper it never bothered to look at anything if the amount was the same as the year before. There was no effort made to cut down old expenditure, but all new expenditure was very carefully scrutinised. It is the cutting down of old expenditure that is of vital importance, and that is what this Rationing Committee is wanted for. In the old days I happened to be in the Civil Service in South Africa, and there, just after the Boer War, people had very lordly ideas as to what salaries should be paid and as to how bottomless was the purse of the public. It was not a question of exceeding income; it was a question of the expenditure being multiplied five or six times the income. Lord Milner was in charge then, and he adopted the rationing policy. He told the heads of Departments, "I do not care what you want, your expenditure must come down 25 per cent." He left it to the heads of Departments to say how it should be done. I was the head of one Department and I had to reduce my staff 25 per cent., and, what was still more unpleasant, I had to cut my own allow ances down. In the same way the heads of Departments in this country would do it. At present it is expecting too much of human nature to imagine that the
head of a Department is going to make himself gratuitously objectionable to every one of his subordinates. But if you give him an excuse—if you go to the head of any of these Departments, and not only to the head, but to the minor chiefs, and say, "Your quota is so much, and you have got to get it out of your Department somehow; it is either your salary or those of your subordinates that will have to go"—you would find that your expenditure would come down, and you would get that check upon expenditure which the Treasury has never had in the past, a check upon permanent expenditure and a real economy.
Many people in the Civil Service now are demanding higher salaries. There was a case only just recently in which the salary of an official went up from £1,700 to £2,200, plus bonuses. And it is not only that these people want more money, but, if the salary of one civil servant goes up, that of every other has to go up too, because his status depends on his salary. There is going to be a very serious attack made upon the wages of the working classes in this country; is it not about time that we tackled the people at the top as well? Unless you bring down the salaries of the Civil Service, you will never get down the heavy salaries of people outside. We are setting a bad standard. If you want economy, you must begin by rationing the Departments, and making the heads of the Departments, whether they like it or no, cut down the expenditure of their Departments. It is often supposed that we on these Benches are not interested in economy, that we are the people who do the spending. That is quite erroneous. We know on these Benches, perhaps even better than those on the other side, that the heavier the taxes the more people there will be unemployed. If you tax Mrs. Jones's sugar, Mrs. Jones cannot spend so much money on other things that she wants. She cannot get the kettle that she wants, and consequently the men who would have been making the kettle are out of work, because Mrs. Jones cannot buy the kettle she wants, because you take her money in the tea tax or the sugar tax or in some other way.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will excuse my interrupting him, but has he forgotten that he is a Member of the Labour party?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I will give you some economics straight from the Labour party. We have to study economics on these Benches; it is not necessary on those opposite. The fact is that, the higher you raise taxes, the less people are able to spend, and the more people are out of work. There are some people who think that taxes are only paid by the rich people. The tears that they shed over them show that they think they have to pay them. But when you put on the Corporation Profits Tax, we know that every company passes it on to the consumer. All taxes are not paid by the person who hands over the cash to the Treasury; they are paid by someone else to whom he passes them on. In fact, as hon. Members on these Benches know, every tax is passed on except the one tax that cannot be passed on—the tax upon land values. The taxes laid upon capitalists are shoved off, and other people pay them, so that all money raised in taxes, with the exception of the one I have named, comes ultimately from the consumer, reduces his purchasing power, and throws other people out of work. That is why we on these Benches object to heavy taxation. We know that sooner or later—generally sooner rather than later—it hits the working man, reduces his purchasing power, and increases the number of his fellows who are out of work.
All taxation is not taxation. There is a great deal of difference in the way in which the Treasury spends the money. If you spend money on giving a man £2,200 a year when he will do the work just as well for £1,700, you get nothing for it whatever. It is certainly not reproductive. Any expenditure which does not show itself in increased convenience to the community, so that the community is carried on more cheaply, which does not show itself in some reproductive way, in improving the producing capacity of the country, is waste, and that is the sort of expenditure that you want to cut out. We do not want to cut out expenditure that is useful. Take the case of education. Our expenditure on education is not expenditure that is thrown away. It is not useless; it is reproductive. Because the people of this country are better educated than they are elsewhere, they are more capable citizens, more capable producers, more capable thinkers. We want to encourage education, not in order to squander the money of the
country and make more people unemployed, but in order to produce citizens who will be more useful to themselves and to the community. Expenditure on these lines is perfectly justified. We have heard about the taxable capacity of the community. Let us consider old age pensions. The money spent on old age pensions is not really new expenditure. Money was spent on old age pensions, before the old age pensions came in, by every individual in the community Dutiful sons and daughters put their hands into their pockets; charitable people did the same; and the old people were helped along and kept alive. That was swept away as an individual duty and became a charge upon the State. The old people were kept alive by a general levy instead of by a vicarious levy. It appears as an enormous increase in the expenditure of the State, but, really, it is not an increase in the expenditure of the community at all.
Very nearly the same amount of money was being spent on the old, before and after that change in policy. So far as the productive power of the community was concerned, so far as the whole community was concerned, just so much of the wealth that they produced was taken by the old people before that change as after the change. Again, take the familiar case of the trams. Suppose that we freed the trams. People are always thinking that we are going to make wonderful experiments of that sort. If all the trams were made free, it would be a heavy additional charge upon the Exchequer, but it would be a very small additional charge upon the community as a whole. Instead of paying their three-halfpences and twopences for tram rides, people would be paying the money in a lump sum. Where you are dealing with communal services and expenditure, you must not judge all that sort of expenditure as being essentially bad. I may say that I do not advocate that change; I am certain that if the Government got hold of it they would have a Department as large as Somerset House conducting the tramways; but it is an illustration of the different sorts of taxation. What we want to stop is expenditure that is not useful or necessary, but is merely a dead weight going on year after year because it has gone on year after year. The best way in this country for getting rid of
that expenditure and cutting down these Estimates is the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green, namely, that a Rationing Committee—I should prefer it to be a Committee of this House—should ration each of the Departments and make a definite effort to resurrect the Treasury as the real watchdog over the expenditure of the country. The Treasury started at a high normal, and now they are only cutting down expenditure beyond that normal; they have no eyes beyond that. We want to start them with a low normal. I do not mean a permanent campaign of rationing, but let us at once start the Treasury on a low level, and so check any expenditure in excess of that amount.
When I hear it stated that the normal year is going to be next year I despair. What has ruined the finance of France and all those countries on the Continent is this constant habit of having two Budgets for what they call ordinary expenditure and extraordinary expenditure. They are always about a year behind with their extraordinary expenditure, and the extraordinary in time becomes permanent. We are doing exactly the same here. We are talking about our normal Budget, and showing how our really normal Budget is almost too insignificant to notice, while the other things are all accidentals put on top. Let us treat our finance in the future, as in the past, year by year, as being, not a question of abnormal expenditure or accidental expenditure, but of what we have to face as a nation, and then let us try to make that finance a little sounder at the other end. We have had too much of the Treasury's taking as revenue money received from the sale of ships and war stores. It was urged by the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) that we should get back to the conditions of Mr. Gladstone. I do not know what they were, but I take it that it means going on sound financial lines, which would be a change for the Treasury just now. There are two alternatives before this country. You can either go on the lines of sound finance, cutting down your expenditure, and restoring something like conditions of soundness to the finances of the country; or you can go the way of all the Continental countries.
7.0 P.M.
I really do not know, sometimes, whether it would not be better to depreciate the £ and send it downhill. If we
did that, then these swollen salaries would go down too. There is a way, if you like to take it, of paying off your debt and reducing your salaries by depreciation. It is not a way that I should recommend, because it is dishonest, but it has been a very usual way on the continent. If you want to avoid that—and I believe that every decent Englishman does—there is only one other way, and that is to get the Treasury to start making real reductions, instead of playing with this question of economy as has been done during the last few months. We know that all these offices exist in order to keep themselves in existence. Every man feels that it is almost brutality to sack any one of his officials, because he would only come into the already overstocked labour market. But unless we really tackle this problem from the top, and force these Departments to make economies, we can never expect them to make them on their own initiative. Therefore I support this Motion, and I hope that everyone who really wants economy, and does not want to keep these offices as reservoirs for younger sons, will support it—not with a view to embarrassing the Government, and least of all with a view to embarrassing the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am certain that, the more power you give him to fight his own officials, the better he will be pleased, and that the more power you give to the Treasury to fight the other Departments the better the Treasury officials will be pleased. Every man's vote to-day is given for economy, is given really to do what the Front Bench want, and I think even the tamest Coalition Member should give a vote for good conscience even though it will be a vote against their Whips. You will be quite safe in your seats and at the same time you will have spoken a word for economy in this country.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: There are only two points I wish to put before the House and the Government. I understood the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Hilton Young) to say that the Government and the Departments were in fact already rationed by reason of the Estimates we pass, discuss, and approve in this House. That may be so with regard to most Departments, but it
certainly is not so with respect to one Department, the Ministry of Health. In regard to a very large part of the expenditure of the Ministry of Health no Estimate of any sort is submitted to this House. The Ministry of Health has ceased to be a competent Department for controlling expenditure; it has become a very large spending office; and I do not think matters will ever be put right in that respect until the powers of the Ministry of Health in that respect are transferred to the Treasury? What happens? The Ministry of Health requires local authorities to prepare schemes. It imposes the obligation on them. They submit these schemes to the very party who required them to make the expenditure. There you go round in a vicious circle. They encourage local authorities to incur expenditure and pass the estimates themselves without submitting them to the Treasury. That seems to me to be a leakage in the national expenditure. The Government have expressed their desire to do all that can be done to control and limit national expenditure. I would like to ask whether they are prepared to follow the recommendations of the Report of the Committee which sat in 1918 with Lord Haldane as Chairman, in which was recommended exactly what I have pointed out, that such relations between the central government and the finance of the local authorities throughout the country should be in the hands of the Treasury instead of in the hands of the Local Government Board, now the Ministry of Health. That is a practical suggestion which I make for limiting, checking and controlling national expenditure, in regard to which there is no check at all at the present moment. That is certainly a great defect in our finances which I think should be remedied at the earliest possible moment. This Committee recommended that course as far back as 1918, and I hope the Government will now announce their intention of making that change at an early moment.
There is only one other point. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepares his Estimate of national expenditure for the year, that Estimate only relates to charges which are provided for by the taxes. It does not relate to any charges provided for by means of rates. If we are to ascertain the taxable capacity of
the country, and prepare a national balance-sheet showing what charges in the way of rates and taxes we are imposing on the people of this country, it is necessary that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should submit a real Estimate of expenditure annually. The hon. and gallant Member who moved this motion (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson) said the rates were now £170,000,000. He was only dealing with last year. He does not know the Estimate for the current year, nor does anyone else. No Estimate of any sort is prepared or submitted to any authority. If we are to get a proper Estimate of our national expenditure it ought to be an Estimate of our whole expenditure, whether by means of rates or taxes, and every county council ought to be required to send up to the Treasury annually before the 1st March an estimate of their total expenditure, so that we can have a real national Budget, and not a false one. Until we get that we shall never get to know what the real expenditure of the country is going to be. I make these two practical suggestions to the Government, as they have so often expressed their desire to do what they can to reduce and control expenditure, and I hope they will take these two matters into most serious consideration.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The Debate this afternoon has revealed the intense desire of the House of Commons to curb the spending powers of the Government, and the proposal which has been moved by the hon. Member for Wood Green is that a Committee of this House—

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Not necessarily of this House.

Sir G. COLLINS: Not necessarily of this House; but a body of individuals should fix the total sum which is to be found by way of revenue every year. The total revenue which can be raised is partly an economic problem and partly a problem of psychology. For instance, a frugal Government would more readily take larger sums out of the pockets of the taxpayers than an extravagant Government, because the people in the long run might well say, "An extravagant Government are not to be trusted with our money, and we will refuse to grant them the necessary supplies which they demand." So the problem is not so easy as has been mentioned this after-
noon. Whether the country can afford £1,000,000,000 or £1,100,000,000 or £1,200,000,000 is very difficult to say. I suggest that the constitutional course for this House to adopt, if the Government are extravagant, if they are asking for more money than the country can afford, is to refuse to grant supplies. In a debate in this House last December I outlined, after much study, the total sum which I thought the Government could spend in the coming year. That amounted to a sum of £935,000,000. I think the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) in the course of his speech mentioned that a sum of £1,100,000,000 would be required in the coming year. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to set aside a full reasonable amount for debt redemption that figure of £1,100,000,000 will be exceeded by at least £50,000,000, and under the present Estimates which have been introduced into this House the country will require to find a sum of about £1,150,000,000 for the service of the State during the coming year.
This House has made several attempts during the last few years to curb the spending power of the Government, first by Committees, which I am bound to say have been of little effect. They have not directly instilled that spirit of economy in the minds of the Government which we had expected. My complaint against the Government in the Estimates for the coming year is this, that they have allowed the execution of their policy to dominate their thoughts, that they have not, instead, taken the finances of the country and allowed the interests of the taxpayers to dominate their thoughts. That is a very broad distinction between the policy of the Government and what I think the Government should have adopted this year. We speak of our national income before the War and of our income having increased during the War. As this House knows, we have wasted our substance during the last five years. What we could readily afford in pre-War days we cannot afford to-day. The attempt by the House this afternoon to ration the various Departments will, I think, also break down. This House is not an administrative Assembly; it is a deliberative Assembly to curb and check the power of the Government; and if the House attempts either to fix the sum which the nation can find by taxation or
to fix the exact proportion which each Department should spend, I am afraid their efforts will end in failure. This House must look at the broad position which has been revealed by the Estimates which the Government have presented. These Estimates, in my judgment, are extreme. They are not in keeping with the first object of statesmanship, which should be the conserving of the finances of the country. I am not concerned as to how the money should be spent, to start with. The Government are taking out of the pockets of the taxpayer more than the country can afford, and until this House deliberately votes against the Government, and not only votes against the Government, but is prepared to turn the Government out, you cannot expect the Government to listen so readily to protests in this House. As I have already mentioned, I, after much study, decided that £935,000,000 was sufficient for the needs of the State this year. The Estimates have exceeded that figure, and if a reduction is moved later on I shall record my vote in favour of economy in the public interests.

Mr. SUGDEN: One has listened with very great pleasure to what has been said on both sides of the House in respect of the need for economy in national expenditure, but there is one particular that has not been touched upon in this Debate which to my mind is vital and essential, and that is economy in respect of our Imperial protection. Much might be said from these benches in respect of its drastic cutting down, but many of us who believe in the perfect and proper protection for the daughter nations—and to whom we owe the responsibility of parenthood—feel that the Treasury Bench have not considered the needs and the necessities of the heavily-taxed industrial populations of this country in contradistinction to the newer and fuller opportunities of self-government—commonly known as Home Rule—as, for example, in India, in Canada, and in Australia, In the new and greater responsibilities which have been given to them, we have not considered the need of their now carrying some greater taxation in respect of the Navy and Army and general Imperial Defence. For example, let us consider that great and splendid people, the nation of India.
When we consider how we have given power to India to impose taxation on the toilers in Lancashire in respect of their great industries, particularly of cotton, and have given them no corresponding responsibility for protection of their own land, naval and military, I do suggest that the Treasury have not, in the best interests of this nation and of the Empire, done their duty in respect of the contribution we should have from India, from Australia, from Canada, and the overseas British nations generally, in respect of Imperial defence. Therefore, the first matter the Treasury should consider, is a higher quota in respect to Imperial defence from all our daughter States, and especially from India.
Secondly, I suggest that the extreme competition of local and national finance has not been adequately dealt with by the Treasury. We who belong to the North country know that during and since the war days, in respect of our industries, we did, and can now, obtain money cheaper than the best gilt-edged security the Treasury had to offer, and if we mere trading industrials by our means and methods of finance and by the prestige of our undertakings can so raise loans at a cheaper price than the Treasury, there is something definitely wrong with the methods of the Treasury and those people who have the national finance in their keeping. How often do we know that in respect to municipal undertakings the Treasury have not that grip of the spending proclivities of municipalities and urban councils that they ought to have. You may take any of the great spending Departments—the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Agriculture, and many others. If there is money to be spent locally they send down an academic gentleman who has a theoretical knowledge of the subject, and there he sits to adjudicate as to whether trams shall be municipalised or washhouses or new town halls erected. Those who have some knowledge of municipal undertakings know that where either a municipality or the nation deals with industry—whether tramways or municipal wash-houses—the cost of such service to the taxpayer is doubled or sometimes trebled in comparison with the service of private undertakings of the same sort or kind. Therefore, in the acquirement of the monies required for municipal or county
purposes, as well as for national purposes, there should not be the competition that there is between the municipalities and the national Exchequer in getting money; and, secondly, there should not be that slackness of practical economic decision which obtains in regard to the adjudicators when claims which are put forward by municipalities as to encroachments on industries—I care not whether they are massive town halls or municipal washhouses or tramways, of which latter not 3 per cent, that are handled by municipalities pay. The Treasury have not a sufficient and proper grip in respect of these matters. Then there is the question of unemployment. What obtains there? If the Treasury would inaugurate a definite system dealing with labour and industry, employers and employés, employment doles would be eliminated, and if they could by definite careful work inaugurate schemes dealing with necessary municipal and urban undertakings—in the hands of free contractors—employment would come which would give opportunities for those much decried capitalists to deal with taxation and unemployment in such fashion as would be economical for the country and so give a wider opportunity and a broader horizon for all sections of the communities. If opportunity is given to the great industrial chiefs in respect of support to enable us to face the foreign markets, we, for example, in the textile industry know that if the Treasury would give much greater facilities and proper insurance, Lloyds and other great corporations would support that Treasury credit, which would give opportunities in the cotton, wool and machinery trades, and we could supply the nations needing our goods but who cannot at present pay for same, and this would provide work for the masses and eliminate the heavy charge upon the Exchequer of the unemployment dole.
Again, something has been said about general schemes. He would be a foolish and improper man who in the slightest degree prevented the very finest and best opportunities of education which could be presented to the people, but book learning—which is sometimes inaugurated in substitution for education—is not the best for the people. In this country we give opportunities for bread and butter getting under what is known as education. We give opportunities of special technical
knowledge. I do not for a moment decry technical training, but initiative and character building is true education. The Treasury, therefore, ought to have a firmer grip on the application of those schemes in rural, urban, and county districts, so that we know we get proper value for the money spent and ensure that the methods which are given in regard to tuition and training under the great scheme of education are really progressive and evolutionary. There is no section of our public life which is so misunderstood and non-comprehended as the scheme which we know as education, and when it is misunderstood and misapplied it becomes wasteful extravagance. Not for a single moment do we decry the full opportunity of permissibility for the child to get forward to the highest possible training, the enlargement of character, the wider horizon, which is true education, but when we see misspent money, because of sometimes ignorant and untrained local educational authorities, it is vital for the Treasury to see that proper value is obtained for education. Again, in regard to housing, something should be done by the Treasury to put pressure upon housing authorities to see that the great commercial rings which now handle and hold up the prices of commodities and the price of building should be dealt with drastically and in due and proper form. Though much may have been done by the Minister of Health—and he has done great service to the country—that has been a weak point. There has been no body of men, either amongst industrial workers, financiers, or bankers, nor in the Chancelleries of Europe, who have correctly understood the power of finance and money, and a great people like ourselves should have some distinctive comprehension and knowledge of the direct application of finance in all the sections of our civic and national life.
Something must be said about international considerations. Until we have a perfect equipoise in respect of training between this nation, the United States, Germany and France, there will be a correspondingly increasing power of taxation needed by this country to carry forward our burden and our finance. The Germans are flourishing. During the last year they inaugurated 44 new industries. We understand that 120 large corporations have increased their capital, and that 12 industrial firms have
raised a capital of £35,000,000 during the last three months. To-day every part of Germany is busily engaged in commerce, and yet our merchant chiefs are struggling to keep their heads above water, by reason of the immense and terrible taxation that rests upon us, as well also as by the uncertainty of organised labour. It is a vital duty in these dark and difficult days for the Treasury to watch every single outlet of expenditure, whether municipal, national or Imperial. I hear to-day the silent tramp, tramp, tramp of 700,000 British dead, and the men who sit on those Benches carry the responsibility of finance as also a power which will make it either possible or impossible for us who remain to carry on the splendid work those men inaugurated and died for. Therefore I want to strike the ideal. I want to lift this above the mere sordidness of money and finance alone. I want to help those who represent the Treasury in giving that wider, broader view to carry forward the splendid opportunity given to us, so that when the history of these days is written it shall be said that not only was this nation powerful and capable in the War days, but in the prosaic bread and butter existence that followed we, by our finance and by our ordinary industrial life, were able to strike a lesson and give an example to Europe in respect of our common life and commonweal.

Mr. J. MURRAY: The subject on which the House has embarked is a very large one. I wish to attempt to indicate one principle and method of financial soundness which is a thing that has been talked about a great deal without much elucidation to-day. One of the paradoxes of the present time is that from all parts of the country and all parts of this House there comes complaints of Government spending. The Government raises taxation on an unexampled scale and takes, takes, takes every day of the week and every week of the year. From all over the country, and from all over this House there come at the same time demands and a very urgent expectation of grants of Government money, and the same people who shout against the Government for spending money are usually the people who shout at the Government to give them money. It seems to me that we have drifted, not only this House and all parties
in it, but the whole country, into a condition as regards finance of sheer humbug, that we scold the Government for taking, and we shout at it to give the whole time. I want to inquire for a moment into the historical origin of all this, and it seems to me to go back to Victorian notions, and to a kind of philanthropic and missionary movement which was very popular with the general public, the Press and statesmen in the second part of the last century. The missionary idea consists of this, that the Government has cleared its mind about a great number of social objects on which money ought to be spent. It wishes the local bodies to spend this money. The local bodies do not see the necessity, and therefore the Government says "we will give you a grant and then you will do it," and the Government has been giving grants for 70 years and the local bodies have been getting into the way of doing the thing and accepting the grant.
But the whole affair has now reached a stage which is thoroughly rotten. It is quite allowable that in order to start a good effort locally the Government should bribe a local authority by money to get on with it, but once the Government has taught the lesson and gone about the beginnings of the experiment all over the country, it seems to me it is time for them to stop. If what the Government has by bribery fastened upon the local administrative system of the country is good, then let it go on, but let it go on without Government help and without these interminable grants. If people believe in education in Manchester, Leicester or anywhere else, let them have their education and pay for it themselves, and do not let them come to Parliament for grants of money. I wish to suggest what may seem to many Members of this House to be a paradox, and that is that people should only have what they wish to have and what they ought to have, and that when they have got it they should pay for the whole of it and should not corrupt themselves and the standard of public life throughout the whole country by being doubtful or cynical regarding the goodness of things that they do, and only convinced about the goodness of getting money out of the Government with which to do them. Some speakers have said that what is wanted to-day is much stronger control over local expenditure. I beg to differ. The price of control of local expenditure by the central
Government is always that the central Government has to pay a great deal of that local expenditure. The less we control the expenditure of local bodies the less, I believe, in some ways will be that expenditure, and the less we control it, much less shall we have to pay of it. I do not wish to labour my point. I began by saying that there is a profound paradox and falsity in the present cry for economy, because everybody expects the Government to do things but nobody is prepared to pay the taxes, which is the only way by which the Government may do these things. I wish, as my second point, to say that soundness and sincerity will never come back to our finances until the people who indulge in the ventures realise that they must, therefore, conscientiously pay for the ventures, and until we get past the puerile belief that anything that we can get the Government to pay for by entreaty or by threat is a thing worth doing.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: When the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme was speaking it was clear that a great many hon. Members took the view that the Labour movement of this country is not very sincerely interested in the reduction of expenditure by the State. I appeal for the consideration of hon. Members opposite when I suggest that not merely has Labour within recent times devoted a great deal of anxious inquiry to the question of expenditure and taxation, but that Labour realises quite clearly that there can be no section of the community perhaps more acutely penalised, if I may use that phrase, by high taxation, than that body of people who depend upon regular, continuous, and remunerative employment. Our difficulty is that we must try to discriminate in expenditure and discriminate in economy, and to that end I wish to make what appear to me to be one or two practical suggestions. I have always regretted, in the first place, that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer did not see his way to adopt a proposal which was made by the majority of the members of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, although a fair part of their recommendations have already become part of the law of the land. While they all recognised that it is very difficult to reach final conclusions on the taxable capacity of the country, the majority
of the members of the Royal Commission suggested that in the present circumstances this country had a great deal to gain from a perfectly impartial and fair investigation of what Great Britain could bear in the way of taxation, and perhaps many suggestions might have been made in the light of our experience with reference to what form that expenditure and taxation should take. It may be too late to adopt that suggestion now. I do not take that view. I think the inquiry is worth while, and that it could be extended to the sphere of considering whether we best employ a good deal of the resources we now possess or whether there are suggestions that could be made for the better use of those great essentials to enterprise in Great Britain.
The question to which I desire more particularly to come from the point of view of Labour is the bearing of heavy taxation on industrial recovery. I regard that as almost the most important issue which could concern the masses of the workers of the country at this time. Unless we can recover our overseas markets, unless we can place our goods at the disposal of the world on conditions which enable us to compete with other countries, I see very little hope for the 44,000,000 of our people. I am very much impressed, not only in the present, but, so far as we can see, the future position of British labour, by the great danger which even now confronts this country in many of the most important markets of the world. I do not want to exaggerate that. I know that there are incurable optimists in economics and in finance who suggest that bad as our position is in expenditure and taxation, it is not so bad as the position of many of our comparatively serious competitors. They point to the tremendous increases in the taxation of industrial undertakings in the United States, and suggest that that very heavy internal taxation in America means that American competition in markets which we are also trying to enter will be limited or restricted. They add to those suggestions the view that on the Continent of Europe the position is undeniably worse than in this country; that they have had recourse to financial and other devices which we should not readily adopt in Great Britain, and that, everything considered, there is no reason why this country should be anxious regarding the
future. I would prefer simply to say that we should admit the internal conditions of other countries, including the non-belligerents, who have all great burdens of debt and taxation, as we have; that we should simply accept those countries for what they are worth in other parts of the world, and that we should remember that, everything considered, we had the best financial system in pre-War times, and that the present time is a time of great opportunity for this country, if we could only realise it, in adjusting our expenditure and taxation to the duty of recovering world markets and the prosperity of Great Britain.
If it were possible now so to reduce our taxation or to improve our finance that we could give the maximum encouragement to the recovery of industry and commerce, I suggest that, without serious difficulty—assuming the good will of our people, which I think would not be denied—we could recover those markets, we should probably bound forward to greater times of prosperity than we have ever enjoyed. To that end we are sincerely desirous on these Benches of reducing expenditure, and that leads me to some illustration of the methods by which we desire to attain that end. It is idle to ask the people of this country to reduce expenditure in education, in public health, and on the scientific and other investigations of industrial processes while we squander millions of public money in adventures up and down the world, or in militarist preparation, or on schemes which are from practically no point of view productive in character. The reduction in expenditure must be all round. The Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) pleaded for what he called a great, broad policy. The broad policy which British labour specially advocates at the present time, from the point of view of curtailing expenditure, is that in the first place there should be a determined effort on the part of this country to make the League of Nations an effective reality, that we should bring down to the lowest possible point expenditure on military preparation, and that in those territories in which we have any influence or any part we should restrict our outlay at the earliest possible moment, put them, if we can, upon a self-supporting basis, and at all events get rid of militarist expenditure so far as they are particularly con-
cerned. That means not a few million pounds—not the kind of economy we could get by interfering in public Departments, although I recognise that that may be necessary—but an economy of many millions of money, which would be reflected almost immediately in reduced taxation in this country, and would give very great encouragement, from the public point of view, to the line of policy which we all want to see pursued. I, therefore, strongly suggest that until we have that attitude and disposition on the part of the Government and the country, until the people get to feel that this call for the demilitarisation of Europe and the world is something sincere and earnest, we are not going to get response from the 44,000,000 of people who are acutely affected by the great burdens of taxation which we are trying to carry at the present time.
So far as the swollen bureaucracy of this country is concerned, we have no desire whatever to perpetuate it. In the Labour movement there is, I am glad to recognise, a growing feeling against centralised Departments. In Scotland in particular there is a healthy revolt against London control and a desire that we should give the maximum of power and responsibility that we can safely entrust to the locality. Above all, there is a desire to see industry and commerce run on healthier lines, and under a better system, by people who understand industry and commerce and not by people who only view it from the bureaucratic or State standpoint. In that connection if we embark upon the reduction of expenditure we are compelled to keep clearly in mind that we shall never recover our markets and that we shall never safeguard employment if we are going unnecessarily to restrict expenditure on either housing or public health or on the provision of better education for our people. I recognise in connection with the attacks which have been made upon the Ministry of Health that we have a Department which has been perhaps sincere and earnest in the main, but which has been guilty of almost incredible error in the execution of its duties. It has not been efficient. It has not secured the lowest possible price for the work in which it has engaged. Very often it has put a great deal of expense on the locality in housing and other concerns which have meant the
unnecessary expenditure of additional millions by the State, but I am going to press strongly that we have nothing to gain by the sacrifice of proper housing or failing to treat to a very large extent the diseases from which unfortunately millions of our people are suffering at the present time. I wish hon. Members who make wholesale attacks upon the Ministry of Health would only inquire a little more closely into the undoubted gains which have already come from a great deal of medical enterprise in Great Britain. I would ask any hon. Member of this House whether he is prepared to face the responsibility of allowing either tuberculosis or venereal disease or any other affliction of the community to proceed without the treatment which we all recognise to be urgently necessary. If we could only measure up the industrial inefficiency and national loss which arise almost everywhere as a result of the existence of these two diseases—to mention no other illness—we should recognise wise expenditure at who make wholesale attacks upon the the present time as part of our duty in the sphere of British economy.
I extend very much the same argument to the sphere of education. Circulars have been issued in favour of economy. A very large number of hon. Members are apparently quite prepared to see education suffer meantime, because, as they put it, we cannot afford it. I prefer to state the case in another way. I say, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that we cannot afford to run the risk of continental and other competitors defeating us on a plain matter of technical or other education in our enterprise to recover the markets of the world. A few days ago an interesting report was issued as to the steps which even now are being taken in the depressed parts of Europe—depressed from the point of view of the awful losses they have sustained by the experience of the last few years—to rebuild technical and other education, and there cannot be any doubt that, if they are successful in the steps which they are taking, we shall be penalised as a country in many spheres in which we were penalised in pre-War times in trying to secure markets and failing to get those markets simply because we had not the technical knowledge at our disposal. This problem must be viewed as a whole.
There are many other reasons which I could suggest from the point of view of labour why it would be suicidal to restrict education at this time. Outside the country in many of the most important councils which we hold the campaign is not a campaign against people who are ill-disposed, who have no desire to do their best. It is a campaign against frank, blunt ignorance, which it is the duty of this House to recognise. That is not a lofty statement. It is a plain statement of fact. Can we go on without injury to British stability and security, and above all, without great risk to British economic prosperity? I think we cannot. Accordingly we reach the conclusion that while it is quite possible to effect a certain readjustment in the finance of education and it is possible also in the sphere of housing and public health, yet we must not fail to make the necessary financial provision in those spheres which are going to contribute to our industrial recovery. If we combine the policy of cutting down seriously the militarist expenses with the policy of using wisely what we spend on really constructive schemes and endeavouring to press on all sections of the people to give up the luxury which even now exists in the State, I think that we have got a programme which will commend itself to the overwhelming mass of the British electors.

Mr. D. M. COWAN: During the last few years there have been a good many economy Debates in this House. So far as I can judge the present one has taken pretty much the course of its predecessors, that is to say, there is a vague expression of opinion that all things have got to end and that we must be living beyond our resources. I have no right or title of any kind to go into the matter of high finance. I might confess to the House that I have never had enough money to allow myself to be called a financier, but there are one or two points on which an ordinary lay person might be allowed to express an opinion. It seems to me that we are starting in some quarters with a false idea of what economy means. Economy is not, as has often been said, the mere saving of money. It is the wise saving of money, just as it is the wise expenditure of money, and I cannot but feel that in some of the speeches this afternoon there has not been any word of recognition of
that fundamental fact. It is very poor economy to save a pound just now if the result is, as I am almost certain it will be, to have to spend pounds more in a very short time, and I am afraid that our policy with regard particularly to education is leading us in that direction.
It is generally agreed that for many years the educational services of this country were very largely starved, with the result that we find now that the supply of teachers even for our elementary schools, irrespective of the higher schools or universities, is not in any way equal to the demand. That means that we cannot even keep up our present educational level, and that there is a danger of our falling back relatively to the standards of other European countries. It means also that in a very short time we must take steps to make good that supply, and that cannot be done without a very largely increased expenditure. It means also that the children of this country will be less well equipped for the work that lies before them than they have been in the past. I am indulging in no exaggeration when I say that our problem at present in education is to keep to the level which we have had for several years back. It did seem for a while that we were at the beginning of a strong advance. Things have gone against it. The Treasury has issued its ukase, and economy must be practised, and it seems to me that there is going to be very fatal economy indeed. I hope, therefore, from the former record of the Financial Secretary, that in these matters of education, housing, and health, the Government will stand firm and not give way to the panic cry of Economy which we have been having from many quarters.

I do not wish to make any reflection upon any Member of this House or upon anyone outside, but I would like to be convinced as to the genuineness of the quarter from which this cry for economy comes. No person has the right to make a call on others to practise economy unless he can show that he himself has clean hands in this matter. It is not for anyone in this House or outside it who has done well in the War to ask the House to economise, and especially to economise at the expense of the children of this country. The very reactionary speech of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. J. Murray) seemed to be going back to the time which I thought this country had left far behind it when the locality was allowed to decide what its educational system was to be. It was said that the people should get the kind of education they pay for; but it must be remembered that education is not for the grown-up people who are to pay for it, but for the children, who are, after all, the greatest asset of the nation. I believe we shall have an opportunity of discussing the question of education to-morrow, but I wish to make a protest against this indiscriminate cry for economy. Without defending unnecessary expenditure in any way, I think that there is not a little ingratitude in the cry that all Departments should be cut down irrespective of what services they have rendered to the community in the past. I hope that my attitude will not be misunderstood to be that of one who wants to squander millions, but if this country takes its courage in its hands and looks forward, as it has done in the past, it has still a great future before it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 92.

Supply considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

CLASS I.

ROYAL PALACES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £68,600, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a Grant in Aid." [Note— £40,000 has been voted on account.]

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.— [Lieut.-Commander Young.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

CLAUSES 1 (Short Title), 2 (Army Act and Air Force Act to be enforced for specified times), and 3 (Prices in respect of billeting), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of Section 180.)

The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section one hundred and eighty of the Army Act: —
(d) An officer belonging to His Majesty's Indian Forces who thinks himself wronged by his Commanding Officer, and on due application made to him does not receive the redress to which he may consider himself entitled, may complain to the Governor-General of India, who shall cause his complaint to be enquired into, and if so desired by the officer, make a report through a' Secretary of State to His Majesty in order to receive the directions of His Majesty thereon.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "or an officer may require that his complaint be referred to a military Court of Appeal."
I spoke on this question the other day. Since then I have received a large number of letters from officers in all circumstances, urging strongly that this Court of Appeal should be established. It is a matter that concerns the whole Army. Throughout the Army the want of such a Court of Appeal is expressed. I am not particularising on the personnel of the Court, but an independent Court should be established. An officer who has a grievance should not be compelled to appeal to the man against whom he has that appeal.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Sir R. Sanders): This Amendment seems to be a hardy annual. It has been brought forward many times before on this Bill. I presume that the appeal refers not to the case of the officer who is tried by court martial, but to the case of the officer on whom an adverse report has been sent in by his Commanding Officer. Under the Army Act, an officer in that position has the right of appeal to the Army Council and to the King. What the Mover of the Amendment wishes to set up is either an alternative to that appeal or from the appeal to the King. I cannot conceive that it is the latter he wishes to do. What he wishes for, therefore, is an alternative to the former. I am speaking of the broad case, and everything depends on the nature of the Court. The only thing I can consider is the Court as it is proposed to be set up by the hon. Member (General Sir Ivor Philipps) in whose name the Amendment appeared on the Paper.
The Court of Appeal that that hon. Member would propose would consist of five Members, two of whom shall be military officers, two not holding any official position under the Crown, and one to be one of His Majesty's Judges of the High Court of Justice. That is a Court the majority of whose members would be non-military. I cannot conceive that any officer on a question of discipline or efficiency, for these cases are usually cases affecting an officer's efficiency—

Sir C. YATE: I should have said that I did hot on this Amendment enter into details as to the composition of the Court, but merely on the broad principle held that there should be a Court of Appeal.

Sir R. SANDERS: The Court of Appeal now is the Army Council or the King.

Sir C. YATE: The Under-Secretary knows that a complaint goes up through the general officer to the Army Council and to the King as a wholly nominal procedure. There is really no court of inquiry which inquires thoroughly into a question. The Army Council cannot inquire as a council. What is wanted is that there should be some auxiliary court—not an alternative court—of military officers if you like, but an independent court which will inquire into a matter for the guidance of the Army Council.

Sir R. SANDERS: The Army Council, of course, has a right to consult every officer who is concerned with the subject at all.

Sir C. YATE: We want a Court not connected with the subject.

Sir R. SANDERS: After all, this is not a new question. It has been discussed on a great many occasions before, and I think those who have raised it year after year should have thoroughly thought it out now. I can only take the proposal as it appears on the Paper, and if the proposal be taken in conjunction with the rest of the Clause, as forming part of one whole, then the suggested Court seems to me, not only unsuitable to the case, but I think it would be very unpopular in the Army.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 134.

Division No. 64.]
AYES.
[8.0 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Colvln, Brig.-General Richard Reale
Ford, Patrick Johnston


Armitage, Robert
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gange, E. Stanley


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Gardiner, James


Barlow, Sir Montague
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Barnett, Major R. W.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Glyn, Major Ralph


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Dawes, James Arthur
Gregory, Holman


Blair, Sir Reginald
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Edgar, Clifford B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Edge, Captain William
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Evans, Ernest
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Cautley, Henry S.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Hills, Major John Waller


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Fell, Sir Arthur,
Howard, Major S. G.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Stewart, Gershom


Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Perring, William George
Strauss, Edward Anthony


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Sturrock, J. Leng


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Pratt, John William
Sutherland, Sir William


Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Preston, W. R.
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Prescott, Major W. H.
Tickler, Thomas George


Lindsay, William Arthur
Purchase, H. G.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)
Randies, Sir John S.
Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.


Lorden, John William
Rankin, Captain James S.
Tryon, Major George Clement


M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Wallace, J.


Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Renwick, George
Waring, Major Walter


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Whitla, Sir William


Macquisten, F. A.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Maddocks, Henry
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Robinson. Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Mlddlebrook, Sir William
Rodger, A. K.
Wilsen, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Mitchell, William Lane
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Winterton, Earl


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Wise, Frederick


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Scott, A M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Seager, Sir William
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Meal, Arthur
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Simm, M. T.
Younger, Sir George


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)



Parker, James
Steel, Major S. Strang
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Grundy, T. W.
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertiilery)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Rendall, Athelstan


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hallas, Eldred
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hayward, Major Evan
Royce, William Stapleton


Campbell, J. D. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Seddon, J. A.


Cape, Thomas
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hinds, John
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hirst, G. H.
Spencer, George A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hogge, James Myles
Sugden, W. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Holmes, J. Stanley
Swan, J. E.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Irving, Dan
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir 0. (Anglesey)


Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Jephcott, A. R.
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davles, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Oavies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Kennedy, Thomas
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lloyd, George Butler
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Wignall, James


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Lunn, William
Williams, Aneurln (Durham, Consett)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Gillis, William
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Glanville, Harold James
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Gould, James C.
Morrison, Hugh
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
,


Gretton, Colonel John
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
O'Grady, Captain James
Mr. G. Locker-Lampson and Mr.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mosley.


Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 65.]
AYES.
[8.17 p.m.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hayward, Major Evan
Spencer, George A.


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormsktrk)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Swan, J. E.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir 0. (Anglesey)


Cape, Thomas
Irving, Dan
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Kennedy, Thomas
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Mosley, Oswald
Wignall, James


Galbraith, Samuel
O'Grady, Captain James
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Gillis, William
Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Glanville, Harold James
Preston, W. R.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Rattan, Peter Wilson
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)



Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Royce, William Stapleton
Colonel Sir C. E. Yate and Mr. J. Jones.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)



NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Armitage, Robert
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pratt, John William


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Prescott, Major W. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Purchase, H. G.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford)
Randles, Sir John S.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Rankin, Captain James S.


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hills, Major John Waller
Rendall, Atheistan


Borwick, Major G. 0.
Hinds, John
Renwick, George


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Howard, Major S. G.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Campbell, J. D. G.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Rodger, A. K.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Jephcott, A. R.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Brldgeton)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Seager, Sir William


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Simm. M. T.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Ccwan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lloyd, George Butler
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Sugden, W. H.


Dawes, James Arthur
Lorden, John William
Sutherland, Sir William


Doyle, N. Grattan
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Tickler, Thomas George


Edgar, Clifford B.
Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.


Edge, Captain William
Macquisten, F. A.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Maddocks, Henry
Wallace, J.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mallalieu, F. W.
Waring, Major Walter


Evans, Ernest
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Whitia, Sir William


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Middlebrook, Sir William
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Mitchell, William Lane
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Gange, E. Stanley
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Wise, Frederick


Gardiner, James
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Neal, Arthur
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Gould, James C.
Parker, James



Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gregory, Holman
Perkins, Walter Frank
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Perrlng, William George

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSES 5 (Amendment of Section 18), 6 (Amendment of Sections 19 and 46), 7 (Amendment of Section 46), and 8 (Amendment of Section 46a), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Amendment of Section 145.)

(1) Section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act (which relates to the liability of a soldier to maintain his wife and children) shall be amended as follows: —

(a) in Sub-section (2) the words from "where the soldier is a warrant officer (Class I.)" to the end of the Sub-section inclusive shall he omitted, and the following words shall be inserted instead thereof:—

Where the soldier is a warrant officer (Class I. or Class II.) not holding an honorary commission — in respect of a wife or children, four shillings, and in respect of a bastard child, three shillings;

Where the soldier is a non-commissioned officer who is not below the rank of sergeant—in respect of a wife or children, three shillings, and in respect of a bastard child, two shillings;

In the case of any other soldier—in respect of a wife or children, two shillings, and in respect of a bastard child, one shilling and sixpence."

(b) The following Sub-section shall be inserted after Sub-section (3): —

"(4) Where any arrears have accumulated in respect of sums adjudged to be paid by any such order or decree ' as aforesaid whilst the person against whom the order or decree was made was serving as a soldier of the regular forces, whether or not deductions in respect thereof have been made from his pay under this Section, then after he has ceased so to serve an order of committal shall not be made in respect of those arrears unless the court is satisfied that he is able, or has since he ceased so to serve been able, to pay the arrears or any part thereof, and has failed to do so,"

(2) Where an order had, before the coming into operation of this Section, been made under Section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act authorising deductions from pay, a further order may be made increasing the amount of the deduction to be made after the coming into operation of this Section under the former order up to the limit authorised by this Act.

(3) This Section shall, notwithstanding anything in Section fourteen of the Army (Annual) Act, 1904, come into operation, both in the British Isles and elsewhere, on the passing of this Act.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, a), after the word "children" ["in respect of a wife or children"], to insert the words "whether legitimate or illegitimate."
The object of this and the other Amendments which I have put upon the Paper will be sufficiently obvious to the Committee. The Clause deals with the amount of money which may be deducted from the soldier's weekly pay in respect of an order made against him for the support of his wife and children, and, repeating the wording of previous Acts, it distinguishes between the amount that is to be deducted in respect of a legitimate child and that to be deducted in Respect of an illegitimate child. The Clause expresses an idea which
offends modern public opinion, the idea that the children should be punished for the sins of their parents and that a man who has an illegitimate child has a less amount of responsibility for the care and support of that child than he has for the children of his lawful wife. This is not in the original Army Act, where there was no distinction made between the children of a lawful wife and other children. It was put in, I believe, in 1904, and it has been repeated without question ever since, merely, I believe, because nobody has taken the trouble to move any Amendment on the subject, but I want to urge my hon. and gallant Friend that the time has now come when this gross anomaly should be removed. There is only one possible argument which, it occurs to my mind, could be used against it. It might be said that the whole amount which can be ordered to be paid in respect of an affiliation order is 10s. a week, but there are several answers to that. In the first place, this Clause deals with arrears, as well as weekly payments, in respect of an affiliation order, and, in the second place, there is now on the Order Paper a Bill entitled the Bastardy Bill, in which the maximum amount a man can be ordered to pay in respect of an illegitimate child is increased from 10s. to 40s. a week. If that were to be passed, this anomaly would remain, that whereas in the case of the civilian the amount would have been raised to 40s., in the case of a soldier it would still be only Is. 6d. a day. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will give his favourable consideration to this Amendment, which would be an opportunity of removing from this Bill what I consider to be a blot upon it, and I believe I shall have the support of a large number of Members in the Division Lobby if the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I wish to support this Amendment, in the first place, because the words as they stand seem to be an unfair discrimination against legitimate children. The provisions of the Clause as it stands allow 4s. a week in respect of a wife or children. There is nothing said about the number of children. There may be half a dozen or more, but the maximum amount is still 4s. If, however, there is one illegitimate child this Clause allows 3s., and I suggest that-that is an unfair dis:
crimination against legitimate children. The second ground upon which I support the Amendment is that the Clause itself is against the War practice. We all know that at the beginning of the War, and in the whole course of the War, the War Office made no discrimination as between legitimate and illegitimate children. Indeed the mothers of illegitimate children were treated practically in the same way as the wives of soldiers, and it would be a retrograde proposal that we should after the War go back to a procedure which we openly scrapped at the beginning. A further reason in support of the Amendment is that it discriminates unfairly, or differently at any rate, as between Scotland and England, because if a child is born to parents who are unmarried, and they are subsequently married, in Scotland it becomes legitimate, whereas in England it remains illegitimate. The result is that in certain cases the children in Scotland would be treated quite differently from the same cases if they were in England, and I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that any provision of that kind is wrong.

Mr. WIGNALL: I have no right to speak for the Labour party, but I speak for myself in supporting this Amendment, which I consider to be most just and reasonable. I have no desire in any way to foster immorality, but I desire to protest against the unjust treatment of children and mothers, and consequently I feel that if the Government can see their way clear to place all persons on an equality, whether their children are born in wedlock or out of wedlock, it will be a step in the right direction. I do not think any man, because he wears the King's uniform, should be protected from the full penalty of his acts, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.

Sir R. SANDERS: The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment seemed to approach it from different points of view. The Mover introduced it on the ground that the illegitimate child would not get enough, but the Seconder stated—what is perfectly true—that in some cases the illegitimate child gets an advantage over the legitimate child. Under the terms of the Clause the higher sum applies to the
mother and child, whereas the 3s., as it is in the first Sub-section, applies to the child only, so that in the first case, although it is 4s., it includes two people, and may include more, and in the second case it applies to one child only—

Major M. WOOD: And the mother, of course.

Sir R. SANDERS: No, simply the one child. There is nothing about the mother in the Bill. I quite admit there is an anomaly, but the anomaly is not really in the Army Act at all; it is in the civil law. The state of the civil law is that £2 a week can be recovered for the maintenance of a wife and child, but only 10s. a week can be recovered for an illegitimate child. It is not possible for the Army authorities to alter that. All that they can do is to apply the existing law to the state of things in the Army, and, under every one of these Clauses, the illegitimate child, in whose interest this Amendment is moved, is able to get the 10s. a week. There is provision that 1s. 6d. a day can be recovered out of Army pay. That comes, of course, to 10s. 6d. a week, which is actually 6d. higher than the maximum which can be recovered under the civil law. However, great the claim upon the soldier, the Army does not think that, so long as he is in the ranks, he ought to be entirely destitute of money. As far as the illegitimate child is concerned, everything that can be recovered in a Civil Court can be deducted from the Army pay. My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of an alteration in the civil law on this subject. I can promise my hon. Friend that this matter will be carefully considered. I quite agree there are some anomalies, but I think that the time to make an alteration in the Army Annual Act would be not before, but after the alteration of the civil law has been made, and I can assure him, if and when that alteration in the civil law has been made, then the matter will be again fully considered by the military authorities. That being so, I hope he will not now press the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 102.

Division No. 66.]
AYES.
[8.40 p.m.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayward, Major Evan
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Rose, Frank H.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hinds, John
Royce, William Stapleton


Bramidon, Sir Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Seddon, J. A.


Cape, Thomas
Irving, Dan
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jephcott, A. R.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Spencer, George A.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Swan, J. E.


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clltheroe)
Kennedy, Thomas
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Macquisten, F. A.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Mitchell, William Lane
Wallace, J.


Elliot, Capt. Waiter E. (Lanark)
Myers, Thomas
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Waterson, A. E.


Galbralth, Samuel
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Gillis, William
O'Grady, Captain James
Wignall, James


Glanville, Harold James
Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Poison, Sir Thomas
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Preston, W. R.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Grundy, T. W.
Rafian, Peter Wilson
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Rendall, Atheistan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. N. Chamberlain and Major Mackenzie Wood.


Hartshorn, Vernon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)



NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Rankin, Captain James S.


Armitage, Robert
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Ratcllffe, Henry Butler


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Hllder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Renwick, George


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Howard, Major S. G.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Rodger, A. K.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hurd, Percy A.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Campbell, J. D. G.
Insklp, Thomas Walker H.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Seager, Sir William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Blrm., W.)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Shortt, Rt. Hon E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Slmm, M. T.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lloyd, George Butler
Sturrock, J. Leng


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Locker-Lampson, Com. 0. (H'tlngd'n)
Sugden, W. H.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Lorden, John William
Sutherland, Sir William


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Taylor, J.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Mallalleu, F. W.
Tickler, Thomas George


Edgar, Clifford B.
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.


Evans, Ernest
Middlebrook, Sir William
Tryon, Major George Clement


Farqunarson, Major A. C.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Whltla, Sir William


Fell, Sir Arthur
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Gange, E. Stanley
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Gardiner, James
Neal, Arthur
Wilson, Colonel Leslie 0. (Reading)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Parker, James
Wise, Frederick


Goff, Sir R. Park
Percy, Charles
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gregory, Holman
Pratt, John William
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Gretton, Colonel John
Prescott, Major W. H.



Grltten, W. G. Howard
Purchase, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Randies, Sir John S.
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSES 10 (Amendment of Schedule II), and 11 (Application to Air Force), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Courts martial—right of appeal.)

"Notwithstanding any provision of the Act, any member of His Majesty's forces
sentenced to death by court martial shall have the right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, assisted by one or more military assessors as the Lord Chancellor may direct."—[Major Christopher Lowther.]

Brought up and read the First time.

Major C. LOWTHER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause runs the risk of becoming what is called a "hardy annual"; but it
is really the considered opinion, the representative opinion, of a minority of Courts-Martial Committee which was set up in 1919 to go into the whole question of the procedure of courts-martial, and so on. The motive, if I may so call it, At the back of this Clause is this: that a man who joins the Army should not, by reason of becoming a soldier, forfeit the rights he would have had were he to remain a civilian. To elaborate that point. In civil life a man convicted of a crime of which death is a penalty has, as a matter of course, a right of appeal to the Court 'of Criminal Appeal. That right does not lie with the soldier. There is instead—because we must be perfectly fair and clear in this matter—an elaborate legal machinery which eventually leads up to the Judge-Advocate-General, or his representative. In moving this Clause I do not in the least wish to infer that these representatives or subordinate officers do not put into this matter the maximum amount of skill of which they are capable. But there is no doubt that a Court of Criminal Appeal, consisting, as it does, of judges of the High Court of many years' experience in the sifting of evidence and the giving of it its due weight, is a body which is not to be compared with any other single body of junior opinion either in this country or serving in the Army.
Two objections were raised to this Clause last year. In the first place, it was urged by the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J, Ward) that if such a Clause as this became part of the Army Act it would interfere with the prerogative of mercy which was used so freely during the late War by the Commander-in-Chief. It does nothing of the kind. It does not affect the prerogative of mercy at all. The object of the Clause is merely to short-circuit—if I may use the words—the long train of legal officers engaged at divisional headquarters, corps headquarters, Army headquarters, and so on—military Members and the Undersecretary will appreciate to what I am referring, and what was the custom during the late War. This would short-circuit the legal side of it and leave entirely untouched the prerogative of mercy of the Commander-in-Chief. I submit to the Committee that there is not any foundation in such objection.
The second objection was that in distant theatres of war it would be impracticable to bring every case where sentence of death had been passed before the Court of Criminal Appeal in London. I frankly admit there is some substance in that objection, but I would also suggest, that if it be felt that there is real substance in such objection it would be quite possible to arrange that cases in India should be referred to Calcutta, or in South Africa to the High Court at Cape Town. My main point is that the best legal minds should be brought to bear upon a question which is a highly technical question that is a question concerning evidence and the law concerning which officers, though they may have legal experience, cannot be expected to deal with so efficiently as judges of the High Court, or judges of the High Court in India or South Africa, who have for very many years been accustomed to handle these questions. I would call attention to the latter part of my Motion, which says that the Court shall be assisted by one or more military assessors. The object of military assessors in such a Court would be to inform the judges who might be sitting upon questions of merely military import. The Committee will follow when I say there might be, of course, questions arise upou which the judge would need advice as to their military aspect. As to the value of the evidence he would naturally need no advice. That he would be able to sift, and form a speedy and accurate opinion, better than the whole chain of Judge-Advocate-Generals' representatives or other officers in a junior capacity.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I do not know whether the Committee will or will not; reverse the decision on a similar Amendment last year. I appeal to them on the ground of humanity and in the name of the Army itself. The suggestion that in cases where the death sentence has been passed in the Army for a military offence the convicted man should have the right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal seems to me one of the most cruel suggestions I have ever come across. The whole point of the death sentence on active service is as a preventive and a warning. If it is carried out after weeks of delay—necessary delay, it may be—after a rehearing, in the case of cases from the Indian frontier at Calcutta, or the northern
frontier of Rhodesia at Cape Town, the whole point of carrying out the Sentence is gone. I repeat, the whole point of the death sentence on active service is to act as a preventive against a complete rot in the Army. Hon. Members who have Army experience may not know the present procedure in these cases, and they may not know what that procedure resulted in during the last War. It is that there is no necessity of appeal at all on the part of condemned men, because automatically there is a series of appeals coming through the different parts of the Army to the general headquarters, and the ultimate decision on active service rests with the Commander-in-Chief representing the Crown. When a death sentence has not been commuted by any of the revising authorities, on arriving at general headquarters the Commander-in-Chief refers it to the Judge Advocate-General, and he views it from the legal aspect. If he is satisfied that there is no legal flaw in the case he then passes it over to the Adjutant-General, who is responsible for the discipline of the Army. The Adjutant-General examines it from the point of view of discipline and the circumstances of the case, and the particular moment when the offence took place. If he is convinced then that it is necessary for the discipline of the Army that the sentence should be carried out, he initials the papers.
I ask hon. Members to consider the position of the> Commander-in-Chief deciding a case of this sort. Even the strictest Commander-in-Chief, even such an old disciplinarian as the Duke of Wellington himself, would examine the case from the point of view of how, by any means, he could save a man's life without injuring the discipline of the Army. That this is so can be proved from our experience during the last War. We had two Commanders-in-Chief, whose, evidence came before the Committee on Courts-Martial. In the one case the Commander-in-Chief had commuted 89.5 of the death sentences that came to his notice, that is to say, 89.5 of the cases which had not already had their sentences commuted by the various Army authorities on the way from the court-martial to the general headquarters. In the other case that I allude to the Commander-in-Chief commuted rather over 90 per cent. In these circumstances is it conceivable
that any court of appeal regarding cases entirely from the legal aspect and the strict justice of those cases without any regard to humanity would have commuted sentences to that extent? The total number of death sentences "carried out throughout the whole of our armies, during the whole of the War, including native troops, did not amount to more than 350. I protest against this new Clause, in the first place purely from the humanitarian point of view. It relieves the Commander-in-Chief and the revising authorities from that moral decision which they give purely on the ground of humanity. It enables the Commander-in-Chief to throw off the re-responsibility and to say, "Let this man take his chance before the law" whereas at the present time every possible inducement comes before the Commander-in-Chief to commute the sentence if he can possibly do so without injury to discipline. I do not think it is necessary to go further than that. This subject has been very carefully thrashed out in Debate before, and I appeal to the Committee to see if they cannot once for all settle this matter, and I ask this in the name of every man who may be a member of the Army in the next war.

9.0 P.M.

General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I should like to support the views which have been expressed by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I have been an advocate for a military Court of Appeal, but I have never suggested that it should be extended to court martial verdicts and decisions. My own experience is a fairly long one on regimental and staff duty both as a subordinate officer and a commander, and this has convinced me that there is no fairer court in the world than a court martial. The judges are men of all ranks, some of them quite juniors and often in sympathy with the persons who are brought before them. After it has come to a decision, the verdict passes through numbers of other hands. It goes to the Brigade and the Divisional Command, the Army Command, General Headquarters, and so on, and each has special officers dealing with this matter. I am sure that there is no officer serving who wishes to deprive the Army of a valuable life, and I have never yet heard of an officer who has had to give an opinion on this matter who has not given the very greatest care and "the most sym-
pathetic study to every detail of the case. Therefore I, for one, cannot support this new Clause.
Probably some hon. Members will say that I am not consistent in supporting a military Court of Appeal, and refusing to support a Court of Appeal in the case of courts martial. I do not think so, because it is my knowledge of the Army that brings me to that conclusion. I think there is a great difference between the two cases. In the one case there is not that careful and precise consideration, of all the evidence brought forward, and from my own military experience I have come to the conclusion that the two are entirely different. Under the present system of military courts martial, in my opinion no other arrangement than that which at present exists is either desirable or possible, except perhaps the next Amendment which stands on the Paper, which suggests that a more experienced officer shall attend at courts martial. That is a different matter which we shall consider later on.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I intend to support this new Clause. I think the figures which have been given are most conclusive. In this matter we are dealing with the most sacred thing in the world, that is human life. The hon. Member below the Gangway has been giving us some, figures, and he says that in 89 per cent, in the case of one Commander-in-chief and 90 per cent, in the other, the death sentences have been commuted by a higher authority, which proves that in time of active service human life is treated as being very cheap indeed, because when these death sentences were referred to other officers no less than 90 per cent, of them were commuted. I believe that is proof that cases of this sort should be beard under the very best conditions, and entirely away from the atmosphere of the battlefield. When we are considering the taking of human life we ought to be more careful than in any other case, and I feel that this Committee ought seriously to consider giving every man, whose life is at stake, the best possible chances. After all, the soldier is a human being, and as a man is entitled to the very same consideration as any other individual in the country. These trials should be removed as far away as possible from the battlefield atmosphere, and be heard under the best possible conditions. I
venture to assert that during the last War a very large number of human lives were taken which would never have been sacrificed if the trial could have been removed from the atmosphere of war. Exactly the same number of men might have been put out of action if they were simply made prisoners and kept in custody until a proper judicial inquiry could be held. It would therefore have made no difference. Exceptions could have been made in very bad cases of insubordination, but on the whole human life would have had a better and fairer trial than is possible on the battlefield. I support this as a reasonable commonsense Amendment.

Major M. WOOD: It is because like the last speaker I have such a high opinion of the value of human life that I cannot support this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member on the front Opposition Bench (Sir Ivor Philipps) gave a certificate to courts-martial which in my experience was hardly their due. I hold that there is great room for improvement in our court-martial system, and any proposal for improvement would certainly have my hearty support. But I do not think that this particular proposal would have the result of improving court-martial procedure. Let the House look exactly at what is proposed by the Amendment. It is that any member of His Majesty's forces, if sentenced to death by court-martial, shall have a right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. All that Court would consider, however, is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, and practically in every case I feel quite certain the Court would be able to say that the evidence was sufficient for that purpose. But the point which really has to be considered is whether it is advisable that the death sentence should be carried out. That is the question which has to be decided at present by the General Officer Commanding. He has to consider in all these cases whether discipline demands that the sentence be carried out. There might be a tendency under this proposed procedure to consider human life too lightly, and the actual result would probably be that more death sentences would be carried out than are carried out under the present system, because the General Officer Commanding would say to himself, "there is the Court of Criminal Appeal to take the responsi-
bility off my shoulders. That Court which Consists of His Majesty's judges with military assessors have come to the conclusion that this man was probably convicted, and why should I interfere? The result would be that the sentence would be confirmed, whereas if the decision had been left to himself he would probably have quashed it. As I am certain that this particular Amendment would result in more death sentences being carried put, I offer it my strong opposition.

Captain LOSEBY: I am sure the Committee thoroughly appreciate the humane instincts of the hon. and gallant Member (Major Lowther) who proposed this Amendment, but I really think he is suffering under a misapprehension in this matter. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) has pointed out what is practically an obligation on those who have to examine these sentences. They look at them from two aspects: first, they consider whether a capital offence has been committed; and, secondly, whether it is necessary that the death sentence should be carried out. I hope the Committee will weigh well the figures which have been quoted to-night, showing that 89 per cent, of the men found guilty and sentenced to death have their sentences commuted under the present system. It is not necessarily that there has been something wrong in the original sentence, nor should the matter be placed on the lower basis, that the Army naturally hesitates before it deprives itself of a fighting man. My hon. Friend can accept the assurance of soldiers who have spoken on this question that, in regard to these particular death sentences, there is really no fairer Court in the world; there is no Court which hesitates more before bringing in a verdict than a court-martial. What is it my hon. Friend suggests should be substituted for the court-martial? It is the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Major LOWTHER: Not for the court-martial. I suggest that the Court of Criminal Appeal should be substituted for the Judge-Advocate-General.

Captain LOSEBY: Well, my hon. and gallant Friend would substitute the Court of Criminal Appeal for the Judge-Advocate-General. It is necessary to examine how the Court of Criminal Ap-
peal does its work. My hon. and gallant Friend is quite wrong when he suggests there may be a re-trial.

Major LOWTHER: No, I never mentioned it.

Captain LOSEBY: The hon and gallant Member spoke of bringing witnesses.

Major LOWTHER: No.

Captain LOSEBY: Then, I should be glad to know the hon. and gallant Member is clear on this point, that the Court of Criminal Appeal, in practice, only reverses decisions on practically two grounds—on the very narrow ground of a mistake in point of law, or of misdirection. There is no misdirection, so that we are left with the point of law. I cannot help thinking that the hon. and gallant Member has really not appreciated that that right is given, as the hon. Member for Mossley has said, without any kind of appeal at all, and that we really Can rest assured that the decision is scrutinised with the greatest possible care. There is no doubt that, when the prerogative of mercy is substituted for the prerogative which is exercised at the present time with the greatest possible conscientiousness and care, those people who are responsible for exercising the prerogative of mercy being only human beings will say: "This man has appealed, and his appeal has been turned down," and I have no shadow of doubt that the result, in fact, would be that many men who to-day do not pay the supreme penalty would then do so. I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have opposed this Clause on humanitarian grounds. I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Woolwich (Captain Gee), is not here. He told me that he was opposing the Clause, and was directly authorised to do so by some 27 regiments, who have given him authority to state that they would prefer the present method. We completely appreciate the motive of those hon. Members who are pressing this matter, but I think when they look further into it they will realise that everything that can humanly be done to safeguard these men is done under the present system.

Mr. WIGNALL: I desire to support this Clause, upon the principle that every man has a right to fight for
his life to the very last day. Every speech that we have heard to-night in support of the present condition of affairs in courts-martial has been made from the opposite standpoint [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, if you have all been privates I am mistaken, but so many titles have been given to you that I am led to believe that you are all officers, or have held commissions of some kind. At any rate, it is from the officer's standpoint that the case has been submitted to the Committee.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: The hon. Member for Mossley has served as a trooper.

Mr. WIGNALL: He is the one exception, and he proved our case right up to the hilt when he stated that 400 men were put to death during the last War. We have no record of that. We know nothing about the crimes that they committed or the process of trial. We do not know what attempts were made to save their lives. That could not happen in civil life. The public would know about it. If a man had committed a crime he would be brought before a magistrate, there would very likely be a prolonged hearing in the police court, the man would be committed for trial, and would have the right to employ the very best counsel that he could obtain. Then, if he were convicted, he would have the right of appeal, and he could, if he had money enough, engage the most eminent counsel in the land to fight for all they were worth to save his life. That would take place in a public Court, it would be reported in the public Press, and the public would come to its own conclusion as to whether the man had been rightly convicted or not. I say that the right given to a civilian should be given to a man in uniform, in whatever branch of the service he may be. It has been said that the penalty of death is more of the nature of a deterrent. That, to me, was the most damning statement of any I have heard here to-night. I understood that the death penalty was a punishment for the crime which had been committed, and was not intended merely as a deterrent. The old public execution used to be the deterrent and warning to other people not to commit the same crime. I do not want to say or to suggest that the officers in the British Army are not honourable men, or that they would wilfully and
wickedly condemn a man to death. I am taking it from the man's standpoint. He has a right to fight for his life, and that is a right which we inherit, whether we are in the Army or not. The man or woman who has committed even the most abominable crime in the calendar has a right to fight to the finish to protect his or her life, and we ask that the soldier should be given the same right of appeal against a sentence which has been passed upon him. Never mind if it causes delay or extra expense; a man has a right to defend his life to the very last moment, and I support this or any similar Amendment which would give to a man who has been condemned the right of appeal against the decision.

Mr. HOHLER: After having listened to the arguments, my sympathies are with this proposed Clause. With great respect to those who are opposed to it, I heard precisely similar arguments with regard to the measure which gives the right of criminal appeal. It was said, just in the same way, that the judges would not take their responsibility so seriously, that they would leave it to the Court of Criminal Appeal to decide whether they were right or wrong. I do not believe that. Indeed, in my view, judges are even more careful in regard to the manner in which they direct a jury and in regard to the admissibility of evidence. I confess that I myself was never in favour of a Court of Criminal Appeal, but I do not hesitate to say that experience has told in its favour. I cannot believe for one moment that any officer sitting on a court martial would take more lightly the grave responsibility of eon-signing a prisoner to death because there is someone to supervise his decision. I could have understood the argument if it had been said that immediate punishment is required. We know all these sentences are reviewed and come home for revision. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Surely they do. I seem to recollect a case of a young officer who was condemned to death. The sentence came home for confirmation, and everybody agreed that the sentence should be quashed, and next morning he was shot. It is said that is quite impossible, but it was credibly reported in this country. I say unhesitatingly that if you are going to take a man's life, whatever his position and rank, he ought to have every protection. This is not going to alter the pro-
cedure. You still have confirmation of the sentence. Some interval of time must therefore elapse. The Court of Criminal Appeal does not get rid of the prerogative; the Crown still exercises the right of prerogative. Even if the Court of Criminal Appeal dismisses the appeal, there have been cases in which the prerogative has been exercised. Is it supposed that the Home Secretary is so weak in recommending the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown that he is bound by the judges' decision?
Courts-martial were not wholly satisfactory in the late War, in fact, a Committee was appointed to inquire into them. I have no doubt that, with the best possible endeavours to do right on the part of the officers, mistakes were inevitably made. That was precisely the case in regard to criminal law, as I knew it, when I was first called to the Bar. The Court of Criminal Appeal has undoubtedly added to the administration of justice, and judges have been far more careful than they might otherwise have been. I find myself entirely in sympathy with this Clause, and regard it as only an additional safeguard for a man threatened with his life, and it seems to me a case which should command the sympathy of this Committee. In the late War, until the Military Service Act came into force, we relied entirely on volunteers, and I cannot help thinking it may be true on some occasions some of these volunteers may have been shot, possibly because the strain of the War was too much for them—some temporary nervousness in going over the top in the terrible conditions that existed. I shall most certainly vote for this Clause if it goes to a Division.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Except in the case of the hon. and gallant Member below the Gangway opposite (Mr. A. Hopkinson), I should have imagined most at the speeches, excepting also that of my hon. Friend below the Gangway on this side (Mr. Wignall), have been delivered by men who may have been soldiers, but who are certainly tainted with the law in deciding matters of this kind. If the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken (Mr. Hohler) were to consult the actual men in the Service in the very district that he himself represents as to whether they would like their case to be
decided by the Court of Criminal Appeal^ purely as it would be from the legal point of view, I am positively certain that the hon. and learned Member's constituents would give him an entirely different view relating to this subject. A most remarkable thing has been brought out in this discussion. Here is a War that lasted nearly five years. In our own Army, from beginning to end, possibly anything: from 6,000,000 to 8,000,000 men were employed, and yet with all the extraordinary conditions that obtained, when even the bravest might flinch and commit an act of indiscipline from the purely legal point of view—there must have been thousands-upon thousands of these cases, as every officer in the Army must know—only 400 actual military executions took place. I venture to suggest that is a credit to the courts-martial and the military tribunals such as I should scarcely have imagined possible. It is a certainty that if lawyers get hold of this case, as apparently they are trying to do, and every soldier is for the future to be tried in accordance with the law, as is suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Hohler), you will not when you employ another 8,000,000 men in a five years war have merely 400 cases. I listened to a speech that not a soldier in the King's army would listen to without objecting. I ought to have objected but I did not because the forms of the House allow opinions to be expressed however much you may differ from them. I acted as a trooper through one campaign. I have been before the C.O. I would sooner be before him than before the hon. and learned Gentleman. He would have looked through the Army Act and, my Lord! If it were interpreted according to the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal it would be an offence even to breathe. One of the most remarkable things when you come into close contact with courts-martial, as any C.O. will tell you, is the utter impossibility of getting a conviction unless it is so absolutely plain that they cannot let the man off. These lawyers would hang scores where courts-martial would hang one.
You may support the suggestion, but do not pretend that you are doing it in the interests of the common soldier. You are doing him a most mighty injury. Even sometimes when the evidence is
absolutely clear, and there seems no possibility of letting a man off, they do it. Get the hon. and learned Gentleman on the job and the poor Tommy's life, decided in accordance with strict legal formality, would be absolutely unbearable. Supposing, after all the evidence has been given, and the officer has fished all through every Act and every decision to see if he can let the man off, and it is utterly impossible for him to escape, he convicts him. The case has to go before the Court of Criminal Appeal, where they merely decided whether he was convicted in accordance with the Act. I suppose it would be vice versâ. I suppose sometimes the authorities would also be entitled, where the prerogative was likely to be used to let the man off, to insist on him going before the Court of Criminal Appeal, that the conviction in the first instance might be confirmed, as in civil cases. I suppose it would cut both ways. But, at any rate, let there be no mistake about this, that the 400 cases of death sentence in our Army during the War show that there is unquestionably, relative to our military discipline in the field, the most humane system that any country possesses. I would myself, so far as I could, stump the country against a proposal like this which handed it over to the lawyers merely to decide whether a man's offence was within the four corners of an Act of Parliament, and, if so, he must be convicted, leaving it to the prerogative of the Crown to rescue him from possible death or incarceration, as the case may be. I would a thousand times sooner leave it to the officers in the Army, who want the man and are determined to get him from the clutches of the law if they can for future service, and only in the direst necessity ever impose the full penalty of the law. Do not let anyone suppose that when you are claiming for the soldier the same rights as are claimed for the civilian you are helping the soldier. You are simply putting him on an infinitely worse plane than he is on at present.

Mr. G. THORNE: Like so many colleagues in the House, I suffer under the disability of having had no military experience, but, notwithstanding that, as a Member of the House I am called upon to give my vote on this Amendment. I look at it from the standpoint of the condemned man, and my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Ward) seems to
argue entirely as though the proposed Amendment were a substitution for the existing law. If it were I should oppose it at once, but, as I understand it, it is not a substitution but an additional right granted to the condemned man If he thinks the existing system is the best for himself he will not exercise this right of appeal. It is only if, under the circumstances, he thinks the exercise of that right is best for himself that he will put it into operation, and if I am right that the passing of the Amendment will not in the slightest degree affect the existing law unless the man himself desires the right thus given him, I am clearly, in the condemned man's own interest, justified in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. SEDDON: I rise to bring forward one point in justification of my vote against the Amendment. My hon. Friend (Mr. Wignall) argued humanely, as he always does in my opinion, upon a wrong basis. He spoke about the civilian who is guilty of a crime and has been given the option of the Courts, which may be the ordinary police court, then the Assize Court and the Court of Appeal.

Mr. WIGNALL: He has no option.

Mr. SEDDON: He gets three courts. He has two under the ordinary law. He is condemned when he is arrested by the authority that arrests him, and when he comes to the Assize Court if the death sentence is passed he has now a right of appeal. But the soldier has the right of five different courts before he comes to the last authority, which can pronounce the death sentence upon him. It has been said by every man who has had any connection with the Army, and I think it is accepted by all but a very narrow minority, that the British officer stands as high in his sense of honour and justice as any judge or lawyer who ever practised. Every Commander-in-Chief who has the unfortunate duty of considering the decision of the four courts beneath has the advantage of as good legal knowledge and as great legal experience as any that you will find in the Court of Appeal. I do not think that the lay lawyers will challenge that statement, that when it comes to giving legal advice to the Commander-in-Chief whether a man shall lose his life or his life shall be saved, he has access to as great authority upon law as he would have if the case went to the Court of Criminal Appeal. If that is
true, then you are doing a very great disservice to the ordinary soldier if you impose upon him this further appeal [HON. MEMBERS: "By giving him another chance!"] He has already received the full limit of all the chivalry that exists amongst the fighting ranks, and he gets five courts instead of three, where he comes before those who have the serious and heavy responsibility of inflicting the death sentence. In the case of the soldier who is condemned to death, his sentence is not for taking the life of an individual, but in most cases it is because his conduct has jeopardised the lives of hundreds and thousands of men, and it is only a strict and stern sense of duty that leads a Commander-in-Chief to give his assent to the decision of the Courts below, and to send one man to his doom. That man does not stand in the same category as the man who is guilty of taking the life of a fellow creature in passion or in cold blood. He is condemned by his comrades for an act which has jeopardised the lives of hundreds, and by imposing this further so-called appeal you are bringing discredit upon those who have already tried him, and doing a great disservice to the soldier who, unhappily, is condemned to death.

Sir R. SANDERS: This subject has already been considered by the Court-martial Committee, and was rejected by them. In that case there was no opposition between soldiers and lawyers. It is a fact that every lawyer and every soldier on the Committee was in the majority that turned down this proposal. It has been debated two or three times in this House, and has always been rejected. Therefore, I think the Committee will not be surprised if I say that it is a proposal which the Government cannot accept. With regard to what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne) said, I may say that from whatever point of view you look at it this extra appeal is unnecessary. The Court of Criminal Appeal only decides on questions of evidence or on points of law. I do not think in a single case where a man was executed during the War that on a point of law he would have got off. I do not think that can be alleged.

Major LOWTHER: It has been alleged. That was one of the points brought out
at the, Court-martial Committee, of which I was one of the minority members.

Sir R. SANDERS: Every lawyer on the Committee accordingly voted against the proposal. Leaving the technical point of view out altogether, as one who knows a little of the army and a little of the law, I must say that if I had to be tried for my life I would very much rather be tried by a military court, and the proceedings that would be subsequent to it, than I would be tried by an ordinary criminal court. That would be particularly so if I was guilty. If there is a complaint to be made against courts-martial, it is not that the innocent man gets convicted but that there is a great chance of the guilty man getting off. I think that is really the complaint that is made against courts-martial. We have discussed this matter before, and I hope the Committee will now come to a decision.

Mr. HOHLER: My hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) will, perhaps, allow me to correct a misrepresentation which he made in regard to my speech. He suggested, or he seemed to suggest, that I was out for my own advantage. That is as I understood it. He said that the 400 cases were clear, and that they had had the advantage of the generosity of the officers. How can he complain if, in addition to the generosity of the officers of the Army of which he speaks—we do not propose to interfere with that—there is also given the right in the ultimate resort to the Court of Criminal Appeal; a further chance? If it was found by the judges that, notwithstanding this alleged and, no doubt, true statement of their generosity, the officers had made a mistake, one of the 400 condemned men might still be alive.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I understand that I am allowed to speak ad infinitum on this subject. I do not wish to reply to the hon. and learned Member. He has made the ordinary lawyer's legal quibble, and it is not worth answering.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 161.

Division No. 67.]
AYES.
[9.55 p.m.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Rendall, Athelstan


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayward, Major Evan
Royce, William Stapleton.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Brlant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Cape, Thomas
Hogge, James Myles
Spencer, George A.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Swan, J. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Irving, Dan
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir 0. (Anglesey)


Davles, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davles, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Kennedy, Thomas
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kiley, James D.
Wallace, J.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lunn, William
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Waterson, A. E.


Finney, Samuel
Mallalieu, F. W.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Galbraith, Samuel
Myers, Thomas
Wignall, James


Gillis, William
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Glanville, Harold James
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Graham D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
O'Grady, Captain James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Grundy, T. W.
Rattan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)
Major C. Lowther and Mr. G. Edwards.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Purchase, H. G.


Atkey, A. R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Randies, Sir John S.


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Rankin, Captain James S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Barlow, Sir Montague
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Reid, D. D.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Renwick, George


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hills, Major John Waller
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Hinds, John
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Blair, Sir Reginald -
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Howard, Major S. G.
Rodger, A. K.


Borwick, Major G. 0.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Rose, Frank H.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Campbell, J. D. G.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Seager, Sir William


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Jephcott, A. R.
Seddon, J. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Lady wood)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Liamslly)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Lloyd, George Butler
Steel, Major S. Strang


Colvln, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lorden, John William
Stewart, Gershom


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Lynn, R. J.
Sugden, W. H.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Sutherland, Sir William


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Taylor, J.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James 1.
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Dawes, James Arthur
Macquisten, F. A.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Doyle, N. Grattan
Maddocks, Henry
Townley, Maximilian G.


Edgar, Clifford B.
Manville, Edward
Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Tryon, Major George Clement


Elliot, Capt. Waiter E. (Lanark)
Middlebrook, Sir William
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)!


Falcon, Captain Michael
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Waring, Major Walter


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Whitla, Sir William


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Morrison, Hugh
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Forrest, Walter
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Murchlson, C. K.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie 0. (Reading)


Gange, E. Stanley
Neal, Arthur
Wise, Frederick


Gardiner, James
Parker, James
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Glyn, Major Ralph
Perkins, Walter Frank
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Perrlng, William George
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Gould, James C.
Phllipps, Gen. Sir L. (Southampton)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles



Gregory, Holman
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES,—


Gretton, Colonel John
Pratt, John William
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. McCurdy.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Prescott, Major W. H.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act, Section 48).

In Section forty-eight of the Army Act (which relates to general and district courts-martial) the following new Sub-section (10) shall be added: —
(1) A court-martial officer specially qualified for court-martial duty shall act as judge advocate at every court-martial where the charge may involve a sentence of death, imprisonment, or loss of rank."—[Captain Thorpe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain THORPE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Amendment does not suggest any form of novelty. The Army Act already provides for the appointment of a judge advocate in the case of a general court-martial or a district court-martial. Section 101A says:
Where the convening officer is authorised to appoint a judge advocate he shall in the case of a general and may in the case of a district court-martial by order appoint a fit person to act as judge advocate of that court-martial.
The judge advocate is, obviously, necessary in the case of a district court-martial. While I agree with the hon, and gallant Member who has just sat down in saying that British officers are men of honesty and justice, they are also men of supreme ignorance in questions of law and evidence. I can speak with some authority on this, as I am both a lawyer and soldier. While British officers have an extraordinarily high sense of justice and honour, they are painfully uninstructed in the first principles of evidence and law, and it could not be otherwise. It is suggested that if a man is impelled by the highest sense of justice and honour, it is reasonable to suppose that he will, if possible, let the accused person off. That, I suppose, will be received with considerable acclamation by my hon. Friends on the right. But that is not the object of justice. The object of a court-martial, as of every other court, is to find the guilty person by legal methods guilty and to punish, and to see that the punishment is just and speedy. At present a district court-martial shall consist of not less than three officers, each of whom must hare held a commission of not less than two whole years. What a wonderful period of training in the law of evidence! A
subaltern, who two years before was a cadet at Aldershot, goes into the Army. He passes some sort of examination in military law, and in two years he is qualified by Act of Parliament to try a man.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: Not alone.

Captain THORPE: Under Sub-section (4) of Section 48 of the Army Act you can have the whole court consisting of young gentlemen who have had only two years' training. The Army Act from which I am reading, which appears to be an official copy, is not correct if I am wrong. What is a judge advocate? What is he going to add to the proceedings to make them more just or proper? The qualifications are laid down. You will find them under Section 101(a). A judge advocate shall, of course, be free from all suspicion of bias or prejudice, and should possess some acquaintance with military law and the rules of evidence. It is an old presumption that the Englishman is supposed to know all the law. I am glad that lawyers at the present time are expected to have only some reasonable knowledge of the law. A judge advocate must have some experience and some knowledge. As a lawyer, after many years of striving at a very difficult profession, I must admit, and every lawyer must admit, that in order to feel that you have any knowledge of the laws of evidence or of the state of the judicial mind, you have to go through years of the most earnest study and the most awful defeats. This Amendment merely makes a suggestion that the judge advocate shall sit, not only on a general and a district court-martial, but on every court-martial, and that would include, of course, the field general court - martial. The district courts-martial and the general courts-martial on active service are not held, except general courts-martial on officers, when their troops are in the fighting line. By the ordinary process of logic, if a judge advocate is necessary in the case of general and district courts-martial, why not in the other case?
Most of the field courts-martial in France during the last two years had a courts-martial officer on them. Every corps had a courts-martial officer attached to it. Every courts-martial officer was told that his duty lay, not only in seeing
to the prosecution of justice, but in looking after the interests of the accused. I can remember innumerable cases where the accused came up and stated that he had no one to defend him. It became immediately the duty of the court-martial officer to look after his interests. My own custom was—and I daresay I shall be told it was wrong—that after the trial of a man in a case where the sentence might possibly be a sentence of death, I invariably, for my own conscience' sake, asked the man whether he considered he had had a square deal. Officers who are incompetent, not through malice, but through sheer lack of experience, should not be put in the terrible position of having to try another man for his life. Their job is a very heavy and difficult one, and if they can possibly do it they will naturally lean towards getting a man off. If that is the spirit which should prevail at courts-martial, let us abolish the death sentence at once. But no; discipline says, and every soldier will agree, that there are cases where men should be tried for their lives and should often be sentenced. My Clause asks that where men have to stand trial for their lives, they should have someone on the court who is in a position to know what is evidence and to give a judgment on the spot as to what the law is or what is not relevant—a person to whom the accused can turn and say, "Here am I, standing alone, before officers of whom I stand in great respect and perhaps some fear. I want someone who will skilfully and with a certain amount of knowledge lead my case and help me to see that justice is done."
Whether guilty or not, a man should leave a court-martial with the belief that everything which legal ingenuity can suggest for his defence has been relied upon. I have never yet met a, lay officer who did not loathe sitting on a court-martial. My proposal would give the officers who composed a Court the feeling that a certain responsibility had been laid on other shoulders and that the best had been done in ascertaining the facts and that the law could look after itself. That would have the ultimate effect of making justice, not only clean cut and equitable, but speedy. I am sure that the Secretary of State for War will agree that the percentage of cases on which court-martial officers sat which had to be returned for irregularities was practically nil, whereas 4 very large percentage of cases tried by
lay officers were wrong, and had to be corrected in some degree or other. We must have courts-martial, for offences must come. We learned in the War that the best way to try a man was to try him with a court-martial officer. You say you must have them on general and district courts-martial. All I ask is that that principle, which the Army found to be effective and just in France, should be made obligatory for all courts-martial of the British Army in the field.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I do not understand whether this new Clause was intended to apply to field general courts-martial as well as to the district and general courts-martial.

Captain THORPE: Yes.

Mr. HOPKINSON: That being the case, I would like the mover of the Clause to consider what the position would be in a vast proportion of the cases involving death sentence on active service, when the Army is abroad. In most cases that are likely to occur under ordinary conditions, when there is no European or other great war, the cases that will occur will occur amongst small parties of troops operating while detached from the main bodies. The only objection we found to this principle on the Committee on Courts-martial was that it would be extremely difficult, if it were made a hard and fast rule, for these legal officers to be present in such cases. If I remember rightly, what we did recommend was that special legal officers should be arranged for in the organisation of the Army, and that wherever possible they should be present in the capacity of judge-advocate. We made that recommendation, and I think I am right when I say that ultimately the decision as to whether a system of officers of that type will be initiated depends to a very large extent upon this House. Therefore, I hope to see in the course of time, when these things have been thoroughly discussed, that an approach will be made to this House asking us to supply the necessary funds. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will withdraw this Clause, inasmuch as its obligatory character makes the application of the principle impracticable in active service.

Major M. WOOD: Whenever a suggestion of this kind is made to the House of Commons there is a disposition to
think that an attack is being made on the regular army officer. I hope no one will think that those responsible for bringing forward this proposal desire to reflect upon the efficiency or the bond fides of the regular army officer. During the last year of the War I had considerable opportunity for seeing courts-martial at work, and I found an enormous difference between them. Sometimes I found a court-martial which was all that could be desired in every way. Other times I found one which was utterly incompetent for its work. I thought it was a scandal to ask such a court to adjudicate upon any case whatever. I will give you an example of the kind of answers I have heard given by members of courts-martial when questioned on important points. I remember on one occasion questioning a sentence which had been meted out for what I considered rather a trivial offence. It was a sentence of two years' imprisonment and I gently suggested that it was too great for such an offence. "Well," came the answer from the officer, "I always impose the maximum sentence laid down by the Army Act. I know there is a confirming officer behind me who will, if he thinks fit, reduce the sentence, and so long as there is an officer of that kind to review my sentence, I think I am right in putting on the maximum." Of course the confirming officer thought naturally that the court-martial had done its duty and had taken into consideration the demeanour and the manner of the man whom it was trying. I remember a confirming officer on another occasion telling me that he never thought of reducing a sentence passed by a court-martial because in his opinion the members of the court, having seen the man, were in a better position to judge what was the proper sentence to inflict, and therefore it would be exceeding his duty if he exercised his power and reduced the sentence passed on any prisoner. That shows you that neither the court-martial officer nor the confirming officer properly realised what they were there for and were not carrying out their duty as they were supposed to do.
I will give another example of an even more serious character. I remember an officer telling me that on one occasion he was sent down by headquarters at the front specially to do court-martial duty,
and on one occasion he sat as one of three members of a court, and he was quite satisfied with the guilt of the prisoner, but it took him a whole hour, he said, to persuade the other members of the court that the man was guilty. It was a question of desertion, and the death penalty was awarded, and the man was eventually shot, he informed me, but he said to me, "What would they have said to me at headquarters if I had gone back and told them that this man was acquitted when the evidence was so clear?" That gives an idea of the way in which some members of courts-martial in the late War looked upon their duties, and it shows the necessity of having on all courts-martial a man who has been legally trained in the taking of evidence and who is judicially minded. I quite agree that it is something of a difficulty when you come to apply this Amendment to field general courts-martial, but on the other hand it is precisely in field general courts-martial that a qualified officer is most required, and I am certain that the difficulty here is a small one and is not insuperable.
I would ask the Committee to consider what exactly a judge-advocate is. He is not a member of the court; he is only a legal assessor. He is not entitled to express any opinion on the facts of the case; he is only supposed to advise on questions of law if his opinion on questions of law is asked by the members of the court. I suggest that before we have a perfect court-martial procedure we shall have to go further than this Amendment and see not only that there is in attendance at every court-martial a legally qualified officer, but that there is a legally qualified officer, a member of the court, who will be able to exercise all the powers and privileges of a member of the court, and so make his opinion really effective in the deliberations of the court. The Amendment says that a court-martial officer should act as judge-advocate in every case where the charge may involve a sentence of death, imprisonment, or loss of rank. Apart from a field general court-martial, an ordinary general court-martial must be assembled if it is a question of a sentence of death, but in the case of a district court-martial it is in the discretion of the convening officer, and I never yet at any time saw a judge-advocate appointed for a district court-martial. Nevertheless, a district
court-martial at present has the power of inflicting a sentence up to two years' imprisonment, and it will be obvious, therefore, that a district court-martial has very large powers, and that, I think, ought to be taken into account by this Committee when they are deciding as to whether a court of that kind should have legal assistance.
The last question to which I should like, to draw the attention of the Committee is the fact that the Amendment says that the court-martial officer should be specially qualified for court-martial duty. Every time a judge-advocate is appointed, he is appointed by the Judge-Advocate-General, or a general officer specially empowered to appoint judge-advocates, and the Judge-Advocate-General, at any rate, only appoints a man as a judge-advocate who is specially qualified—at least he is supposed to do so, but I have known in many cases that the Judge-Advocate-General did not consider that this imposed upon him the obligation of appointing only a man who was, say, a trained lawyer. Any soldier who had devoted a little time to military law was considered to be fit to discharge the duty of judge-advocate at a court-martial, and, from my own experience of many cases, I am certain no impartial observer would consider that the man was really qualified in court-martial duty. I suggest that these words in the Amendment ought to be interpreted—and, indeed, they ought to be strengthened so as to make them capable of no other interpretation—as meaning an officer who is a qualified lawyer. It may mean eventually the setting up of a system of law officers in the Army who are lawyers, but I do not think that the House of Commons need be afraid of that. The question at issue is far too grave to allow a mere question of a little more expense to stand in the way. From my experience—and it is a very considerable experience—during the last War, I am satisfied that something of this kind is highly desirable and even necessary.

Major GLYN: I hope the Committee will very seriously consider what they are doing before they support this Amendment. It seems to me it is a matter about which we should be most apprehensive. One fears it is an attempt of lawyers who gained a little experience in the War to foist upon the Army their
trade union system, which is a thing that has broken many a large concern, and from which the Army has been happily free since its inauguration. As a matter of fact, I think the soldier is quite well off. What does a lawyer know about the matters for which soldiers are tried; and, further, which is more important, what is to be the position of the president of a court-martial? Every officer who is trained in the service of the Army is trained in the knowledge of military law, and if, during the War, you increased your Army so enormously that it was impossible to have officers fully qualified, that is an emergency which might be well met by some temporary legislation. But the Committee should strongly object to the Army having saddled upon it this iniquitous system of transferring lawyers to adjudicate on military matters. So far as I know, no officer is afraid of his responsibilities, and I can conceive no position so difficult as that of the president of a court-martial who has a total stranger, an outside officer, unknown to military usage, and unknown to local conditions, sitting on a court-martial, and entirely overruling any opinion expressed by officers who have full information about the matter on which a soldier is being tried.
My experience, which extends to some years before the War, is that if there were a lawyer on any court-martial an atmosphere of the utmost suspicion would be at once created. After all the War Office has spent time in making out a form which, unless a person is a perfect idiot, he cannot help filling up according to the proper procedure. Although it is irksome to fill in these forms, it does assist officers, who use ordinary common sense. This is the thing the soldier appreciates more than legal experience, and what may be called knowledge of the law of evidence. We want to have men judged by men who know the conditions under which they work. I have never known a soldier who objected to being sentenced by a court-martial. I would be very much surprised if those who support this Amendment realise how far-reaching the consequences of it may be. At any rate, I would join with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) and would ask that this Amendment should be withdrawn until the military authorities overseas, who are now in consultation about this matter, will have a chance to
report to the War Office. The matter can then be reconsidered as a whole. I would beg the Committee to give no support to this Amendment, which strikes very deeply at a most vital aspect of Army discipline.

Captain LOSEBY: I support this Amendment. I consider that one of the best arguments in favour of it, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down does not seem to realise, is that it was tried during the latter days of the late War—I think the last two years of the War—with the most complete success. I have never met any officer, regular or otherwise, who was prepared to state that this particular innovation did otherwise than materially assist him in his duty. I really do not understand what my hon. and gallant Friend means when he talks about introducing trade union methods into the Army. Does he seriously argue that providing a court-martial officer, specially qualified for court-martial duty, means necessarily the introduction of trade union methods into the Army?

Major GLYN: May I explain that I said "Lawyer" trade union methods.

Captain LOSEBY: Does it introduce legal trade union methods into the Army because you state you will have one particular expert for this particular work, a man who shall be an Army officer in every sense of the word? Trade union methods, legal or otherwise, do not enter into the question at all. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is allowing, if I may say so without offence, his feelings in this matter to carry him away. My hon. and gallant Friend persisted that this particular officer overruled the other courts-martial officers. As a matter of fact, he does nothing of the kind. He was not, during the War, given powers to do anything of the kind and he never did so. He stands in exactly the same position as the clerk stands to the magistrates. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Exactly the same position. He advises them on points of law, and there is no overruling power. I never came across a case—and I have had a very considerable experience—of objection to this particular class of officer.
I want also to refer to the objections raised by the hon. Member for Mossley
(Mr. Hopkinson). He raised the difficulty that, in the case of a small unit operating alone, it would be difficult to provide this particular officer. I would remind the Committee that this would only operate in a very unusual case of something under a corps. In the latter days of the War there was one of these officers attached to every corps. I do not think it would be a very great inconvenience, when you have units smaller than a corps operating alone, either to provide a special officer in this particular case, or to relegate back in this particular instance. But this is the great point: if my hon. and gallant Friend sympathises with the system of some kind of legal support generally to assist, I am quite sure my hon. Friend who proposes this Amendment is only pressing for the acceptance of the principle, and not for the exact words of the Amendment. I am well aware that it will be passing through the mind of the Committee that this will be a great expense, but as far as England is concerned ten men could do the whole of the work with ease. At the present moment my right hon. Friend has adopted the system in Ireland, where he has these particular gentlemen acting as Army officers, and they are doing most valuable work. In a very short time they will become redundant and it will be quite possible to absorb these particular experts without adding one single man to the British Army.
I could not agree with the general reference as to the incapacity of court-martial officers, as was suggested by the hon. and gallant Member (Major M. Wood), as I came across them during the War. I agree there were certain instances. The thing that impressed me in regard to the elementary rules of evidence and the elementary principles of law was the rarity with which they were wrong rather than the frequency of their errors. The training given at Sandhurst in elementary legal matters is excellent. It is only because I feel very strongly that in serious cases they can only be assisted by someone who goes a little deeper into the science of law; because I believe this change can be brought about without any additional expense; because I am convinced that the Regular Army Officer would only be assisted and would not be impeded in his work; because I believe that there is no kind
of desire to 1overrule them, that I think nothing but good could come from accepting the principle underlying this Amendment.

Mr. LANE-FOX: If this Amendment is passed as it stands now, before you could reduce a corporal to the lower rank you would have to bring in a trained lawyer. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down has said is perfectly true as to the usefulness of court-martial officers during the War. During the recent War the duties of British officers were very abnormal indeed, and they acquitted themselves very well under the circumstances. The main object of my rising, however, is to protest against the speech made by the hon and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Major M. Wood). It seems to me outrageous for the hon. and gallant Member to have based his case on the ground that a certain member of a court-martial always gave the maximum sentence because he knew that would be subject to confirmation— Which he seemed to suggest was the normal practice.

Major M. WOOD: I did not suggest it was a normal case. I meant to quote it as an extreme case, and extreme cases must be provided for.

Mr. LANE-FOX: The hon. and gallant Member should be more careful in his statements.

Major WOOD: I must protest against the suggestion that I did not make it quite clear that it was only one case I was referring to. I never said anything to suggest it was not an extreme case.

Mr. LANE-FOX: I certainly do not want to be unfair to the hon. and gallant Member. I am glad to draw from him the admission that this was a very extreme case. I am certain he must have struck some remarkably incompetent officers on courts-martial. He spoke of one who had said he never reduced sentences of courts-martial because he had such confidence in them. It is not right that statements of that sort should be made in the House of Commons without concrete evidence.

Major WOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that I am telling something which is not true? I gave two instances which had come under my own
observation, and I quoted them as proving the necessity for some provision of this kind. I quite agree that they are not normal; I did not suggest for a moment that they were; but surely I am entitled to ask my hon. Friend to accept as matters of fact two experiences of my own during the War which I can vouch for.

Mr. LANE-FOX: I absolutely accept the assurance of the hon. and gallant Member. I can only condole with him on account of the people he seems to have come across.

Major WOOD: Why condole with me?

Mr. LANE-FOX: At any rate, this Amendment would not provide a remedy for those particular conditions. There is nothing in the Amendment which affects the giving of the maximum sentence or the duties of the confirming officer, and therefore his speech was not only grossly unfair, but it was also irrelevant.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Perhaps the Committee would like me to reply now to the Debate which has ranged over a fairly wide field for some time. The Amendment we have been told is to be applicable only to cases where a man is to be tried for his life. But that is not the Amendment on the Paper, and as has been pointed out it would be impossible under it to reduce a corporal without having a trained lawyer acting as Judge-Advocate. It has been admitted too, in the course of the discussion, that it would also apply to Field General Courts-Martial, and it will be really impracticable unless you are going to have a legally-trained officer attached to every unit. I have no reason to object to that—far from it; but I think a little goes a long way. You cannot have them attached to every unit that may be on service in an active campaign. I cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment, but I have something else to say which, I daresay, will help to reconcile my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment, although not some other Members of the Committee. This question was considered by Sir Charles Darling's Committee, which was really a very representative Committee, consisting of officers, Members of Parliament, and members of the public;
and they came to a unanimous conclusion on this subject. They said:
During the War the system was introduced of employing, in connection with the work of courts-martial, special officers who were either barristers or solicitors, and who were called court-martial officers.
They found that there appeared to be a consensus of opinion among the witnesses and persons who submitted suggestions, that, in some form or other, this system ought to be continued. They agreed, and recommended that in both the Army and the Royal Air Force, in large formations—say commands and areas—there should be qualified legal officers who would be available for general legal work in the command, as well as for advising on court-martial work. Hon. Members will see that that is not at all the same thing as this Amendment. The recommendation simply amounts to this, that there shall be, as part of the Regular Army, men with legal qualifications who can look after the general legal education of certain officers, and it seems to me to be an entirely desirable thing that these legal officers should help in the administration also. From my own experience I am quite sure that they would be able to save, in many ways, at least a part, if not all, of the emoluments which they would be entitled to draw. This Report has been considered by a Committee set up in the War Office, and that Committee has reported. I was hoping that I should be able to make some definite announcement to-night of the final decision in the matter, but I am not in a position to do so, because, as hon. Members know, these questions which give rise to expenditure have to be very carefully considered. I am not, therefore, prepared to-night to say how far it is possible to go in the matter, but I am convinced that the Army will, in the words of the soldiers who were parties to this Report, benefit by having better legal instruction, and the public themselves will be better satisfied with the judgments given by courts-martial if they feel that they are subject to legal review. All of that seems to me to be worth obtaining, and I have no doubt that at a reasonable cost it will be possible to obtain it.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: The statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made is of a distinctly interesting
character, and it will, I think, go some way towards satisfying the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment. At any rate, I hope it will. The Secretary of State did not tell us whether this proposal to have what would be a kind of legal staff officer—Staff Officer (Law), I suppose he would be called, or something of that kind—will be carried: out in the case of formations in the field, but I presume that that will be the case. Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is so?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is precisely what I do not want to pledge myself to. I want to be perfectly candid with the Committee. After all, the Army is kept up for its fighting value, and not for its legal value; and, while a certain amount of law is necessary, I want to find that at a reasonable expense, and I do not want at this moment to be pressed to say to what extent, as regards the number of officers and so forth, I shall be able to go. I will, however, try and make it efficient.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: If we had had that proposal earlier, I think it would have gone a long way towards satisfying those hon. Members who were so anxious to see sentences of death referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal. It is a great step forward, and I am sure that those who have been pressing for some years to get some improvement in the administration of the discipline side of the Army will welcome it with great pleasure. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Amendment was somewhat annoyed, I am afraid, at a remark of mine while he was introducing it. I did not desire to be discourteous to him, but I thought he was leading the Committee to believe that these sentences of death would be passed by young officers of a short period of service such as three years. Of course, a court-martial has a larger number than that. It is nine in this country and India, and not less than five elsewhere. The officer must have five years' service, not three, and must be of the rank of captain. My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Thorpe) has only seen the Army in the days when men reached the rank of captain after two or three years, but we older soldiers only got our company after ten or twelve years.

Captain GEE: It is rather pleasing to me to hear so many champion of the Army come forth. I only regret that the champions who are so numerous to-day were not equally numerous in pre-War days when I was serving. I make no apology for intervening at this late hour, because no time is wasted in considering this question, when we have got lives at stake, and the lives of British soldiers. I perhaps am in a unique position in being one, if not the only one, of the Members of this House who have been tried by court-martial, and so I can speak from perhaps a definite point of view. I cannot allow this Debate to close without adding my small quota to this discussion. The proposition which we have got to decide is a very, very serious one, and I only intervene in this Debate because I have a direct mandate from no fewer than 27 different units of His Majesty's Army, whom, I have consulted on this question. I visited 27 sergeants' messes, 27 corporal's rooms, and 27 canteens, and in each one of them I put the same question, " Whom do you prefer to be tried by—the men you are living with, the men you will fight with, and the men perhaps you will die with?" and in every case I have had the unqualified answer that they prefer to be tried and dealt with by their own officers. When I went into detail with them over this Court of Appeal, I found the whole idea was ridiculed. Perhaps it may be interesting, and certainly educational, to some Members of this House if I were to run through the detail of what happens when a man is tried for an offence for which the extreme penalty may be enforced. I am speaking with a certain amount of experience, because, as staff captain of my brigade, when this unfortunate thing happened, I was the first officer to whom the court-martial proceedings were sent. I had to enter on the proceedings the time I received them. They were then handed by myself to the. Brigadier-General. He Went through them. He was then bound to record his opinion as to whether the penalty should be enforced or whether it should not be enforced, and to add his reasons. But it did not stop there. He also had to collect the opinion of the man's commanding officer, and the man's commanding officer could get the opinion of the man's company commander, and the
company commander could get the opinion of any man in his company, provided it was to the advantage and not to the detriment of the prisoner. It was then sent on to the Divisional Commander, who read the evidence, and he, too, had to record his opinion and his reasons, and so it went on through the Corps Commander and the Army Commander until it reached the supreme man, the Commander-in-Chief. And then it was not as though one man had to decide on the life and death of a private soldier or officer. He had the expert advice of the Judge Advocate General. When I put this to the men of the various units that I visited, they agreed that they would far rather be dealt with by the man on the spot, the man who knew their privations, the man whose sympathies were with them, because he knew the living hell that they had passed through.
Now let us look at it from the other point of view. We will assume that you set up this Court of Appeal. Where are you going to set it up? Are you going to set it up in the theatre of war? Do you propose to set it up in England? But it does not make any difference where you set it up. The fact remains that by the time the case gets to the Court of Appeal you will find half the witnesses will either be transferred to hospitals or may be, unfortunately, killed, and you will have the dry-as-dust evidence in black and white and then you have the legal aspect only. The Court of Appeal will only be able to judge from the written evidence. They will be out of touch entirely with the sympathies of the men who have gone through this living hell, and the only thing to do is to leave it as it now stands and leave the officer and the man to be dealt with entirely by the officers with whom they are serving and living and whom only they trust.

Captain THORPE: The right hon. Baronet who lately replied found it possible to meet the principle for which I contended with a certain amount of sympathy, and that being so, I have no hesitation in withdrawing my Amendment. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend opposite will not interpret anything I have said as casting any aspersion at all on the serving soldier in the same spirit
in which I believe the hardest things were said about lawyers without being wholly intended.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 42.)

"In Section forty-two of Army Act, at end, add" or an officer may require that his complaint be referred to a military court of appeal."— [General Sir Ivor Philipps.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I believe the Under-Secretary has referred to hardy annuals. This is one. The matter has already been discussed to a certain extent on an Amendment to the Bill, but that particular matter referred only to officers in India.

Sir R. SANDERS: We discussed the whole question on the Indian Clause. I observed that it was only the first of a sequence of Amendments, and I said at the time that we would take the whole subject together, and we did so.

11.0 P.M.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I am entirely in the hands of the Chair, and as I have been called upon I suppose I am in order. If there was an arrangement that all the things should be discussed on the first Clause, I do not wish to stand in the way of the Committee; but if there was no arrangement made, I propose to proceed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. Wilson): I was not here, and cannot say whether there was an arrangement. I must be guided to a certain extent by the statement made by the hon. Member (Sir R. Sanders).

Sir R. SANDERS: I do not wish to say that there was an arrangement, but when I got up I said there was a sequence of Amendments and that I proposed to deal with the whole matter together I did not confine my remarks to India, but dealt with the whole subject.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think under the circumstances the case would be met by a reconstruction of the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member has no doubt reserved his right to have a Division; but to range over the whole; discussion again would be contrary to the custom of the House.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I have raised this question on previous occasions and I was told by the War Office that I was depriving the officers of the right of appealing to the Crown. Therefore, it was interesting to me when I saw the Bill brought in this year to find that, evidently, the Army Council had put up this' argument against my proposal and then suddenly found that an officer in India had not the right of appeal to the Crown, and they had to bring in a new Clause to justify the argument which they made against me in previous years. I do not propose that this court of military appeal should have anything to do with courts-martial; but what is referred to in Section 42 of the Army Act—
If an officer finds himself wronged by his commanding officer.
During the War I was told that it was not possible to introduce this system because of the difficulty of doing so in time of war; but I hoped that now the War is over the Army Council would have adopted some measure of this sort of their own accord. There is one well-known occasion when a special inquiry of this sort was given where a colonel, a general, two commanders-in-chief, and a member of the Army Council had dealt improperly with the complaint of a young second-lieutenant. A special Act was passed in this House in 1916, and a special Court of Inquiry was appointed by the Army Council under that special Act of Parliament to inquire into the case of this young second-lieutenant of a Welsh Regiment. We had the good fortune at that time to have a very capable member of this House, now dead, Sir Charles Markham, who took up the case, and the present Prime Minister was Secretary of State for War. It brought home to me, and, I am sure, to a great many Members of this House, how important it is that officers or men should have the right to some appeal. We have been told that officers have an appeal to the Crown which they value very much. That is true in theory. In practice there is no such appeal. If an officer sends his case to the Army Council and if they do not satisfy him and he asks that it should be sent to the King it is sent to the King, and it is then marked straight back to the Army Council and the same answer is given as before. There is a large amount of dissatisfaction with the
rulings of the Army Council on questions of pay, pensions, and such matters. A military court of appeal in these matters would be of great advantage in removing discontent in all ranks of the Army, and it would be of great benefit to the Army Council by relieving them of responsibility in complicated cases.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: I would like to support what has just been said. This question has excited great interest among officers in the Army. Some days ago the subject was brought before public notice, and I have had letters from all parts of the country about it, which show that an enormous number of men are labouring under a grave sense of injustice. One of these letters struck me particularly. An officer who had command of a battalion during the War was removed from his command, and he had no possible remedy. Fortunately for himself he came under another general and was given command of another battalion. He won the Distinguished Service Order, and every honour he could get. He came through the War with great distinction, and afterwards was assassinated in Ireland. The mother who wrote me the letter told that her son kept a diary, and that if she had not read that diary she could never have realised the mental anguish which he went through owing to the fact that he was unjustly removed from his command. These are not court-martial cases, but cases of grievances of officers who suffer from unjust decisions. I hope that the Undersecretary will take the matter into consideration and set up some court of appeal by which officers who have this terrible sense of injustice may have some appeal. I do not want to say exactly what should be done, but I do hope that the Army Council will take this into consideration and form some independent tribunal in which the matter can be decided impartially.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I want to deal with courts of inquiry, whose existence in the Army makes me think the Amendment may be worthy of support. I have had considerable experience in appearing before courts-martial, and I do not at all agree with some of the comments made upon the conduct of those courts. My experience of them is that they are admirably conducted, and I know of no fairer tribunals. They have what,
no doubt, some hon. Members would regard as the drawback of having a judge-advocate general attached to them, but he seemed to me a most useful official and he summed up at the end of a case. Courts of inquiry are entirely different. They ought not to be called courts at all. There exists a procedure in the Army under which a commanding officer may direct an inquiry to be held into the conduct of some other officer. He is summoned to the court of inquiry without being told the object for which the court is to be held. In a case in which I appeared, a colonel was summoned to appear before a court without the least intimation as to what the court was to inquire into, and only when he got there did he find that the allegation against him was one of having encouraged drunkenness in his regiment. The courts are held subject to a condition which will rejoice the hearts of some hon. Members—the laws of evidence are not observed. There is a rule to that effect. The laws of evidence are nothing but the rules of commonsense. They are laid down for the protection of the accused and they form the greatest safeguard that he has. You cannot get a just result unless you observe the rules of evidence. I can give a concrete example. I was engaged in the case in which a man was accused of a very serious offence. During the trial a written communication was produced. It had been written by a, man abroad to some friend and was about the case. The rules of evidence not being observed, it was produced in court and read, and it certainly commented in very scathing terms on the conduct of the accused, setting out all sorts of facts which were very unfortunate for him. By a pure coincidence the writer of the letter happened to be in court, and as soon as the letter had been read he demanded to be called. He stated in evidence that since having written the letter he had found that the facts upon which he based the letter were altogether wrong, and he wished to withdraw the letter. But for the accident of the writer being in court, the accused would probably have been convicted. That is the procedure of a court of inquiry, and because upon the report of a court of inquiry a man may lose his whole career, I do think the man whose conduct is being inquired into in such
circumstances should, as soon as he is accused, be given the option of going before a court-martial instead of a court of inquiry. If he goes before a general court-martial he will get a fair trial. There will be a judge advocate-general, and, although to lawyers the procedure seems rather cumbersome and old-fashioned, a fair trial is certainly provided. Anybody subject to a court of inquiry should at least have some right of appeal. There is of course the appeal to the King, but—

Sir R. SANDERS: On a point of Order. Is all this about courts of inquiry relevant to the Amendment at all? The proposal is to make an alteration in Section 42 of the Army Act. That deals with an officer who thinks himself wronged by his commanding officer, and it states that he may appeal to the Army Council. There is no mention of courts of inquiry.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: On the point of Order. Any particular case where a court of inquiry is held in regard to an officer into any subject whatever, it may be that this officer will be found by the court of inquiry to have done something wrong. Then his commanding officer punishes him or treats him in such a way that it is equivalent to punishment. Such cases happen every day, and I do not think that there is a single Member who has not got cases submitted to him of this kind. I submit that is exactly the sort of thing that I am trying to put right; and it is on that particular question that I am moving the Amendment. If an officer or man is shown to the court of inquiry to have done something wrong, and if he is then punished, and the punishment is wrong, I want to give him a right of appeal, so that the Secretary of State for War has put his finger on the spot, and has shown that, instead of being out of order, this is exactly in order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Army Act gives the officer a reference to the Army Council. This Amendment, as I understand, gives him a reference to another tribunal, and I cannot make a distinction.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I had practically completed the observations I proposed to make. Whether the remedy
lies in the creation of a court of appeal, or whether it is by giving the accused the option of going before a court-martial instead of a court of inquiry, the fact remains that there should be some means whereby a man who is going to be tried by a court of inquiry can get some other body's decision on his case. That is the reason why I support the Amendment.

Sir HAROLD SMITH: I hope we shall not rashly divide on this very important question. I had hoped my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench would have answered the criticism which has been put forward and which is evidenced in this Amendment. Few of us, who have had the necessity at any time to professionally represent officers whose whole career was at stake, will do otherwise than support the Amendment. In such experience as I have had, I venture to say that when an officer, who possibly has never in his life had anything whatever against him, has a complaint made against him by the Army Council or by his commanding officer, supported by the Army Council, he has to-day no redress which is of any value whatsoever. What is the good of appealing through the Army Council to His Majesty in person? That is the only possible redress which an officer has, and it is a most dreadful thing, in my view, that year after year we should go on confirming this Act and denying to an officer that right of appeal which is open to every other subject of the State. It may be the view of the Committee that there should be no appeal beyond the Army Council, but if that is the view, let us amend the Act and make it quite clear that the word of the Army Council is the last word; do not let us go through the farce year after year of confirming this Act when we know that in the practical working of it there is no appeal whatever, because the body to which you are appealing is the Army Council, and it is the Army Council who, if the officer requires it, shall make their report to His Majesty in order to receive the directions of His Majesty thereon. Of course, that is a farce in practice, and if it is a farce, let us get rid of it. There is not one of us who has had any experience of these matters who could not give case after case of officers who, in our humble judgment, have been treated with injustice. I do not blame the Army Council, because they have formed the best judgment they could form on the
cases before them, but there are officers who, in our view, have been treated with injustice and who have no right of appeal, and their whole career may be blighted. If they are to have an appeal, give them a real appeal, and, if not, amend the Act and say right out that the view of the Army Council shall be final and conclusive. The Amendment asks that an officer may require that his complaint be referred to a military court of appeal, and I cannot think of anything more moderate as a request to make before you blast a man's career. I hope my hon. and gallant

Friend will make this stand, though he may be defeated to-day, but I believe this ridiculous enactment before many years will be repealed, and I hope we shall go on year after year endeavouring to give an opportunity to an officer to appeal against the decisions of the Army Council to a military court of appeal. I shall support my hon. and gallant Friend if he goes to a Division.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 114.

Division No. 68.]
AYES.
[11.25 P.M.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayward, Major Evan
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hinds, John
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Butcher, Sir John George
Hood, Joseph
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Cape, Thomas
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Spencer, George A.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Swan, J. E.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomas, Brig. -Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Kiley, James D.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lunn, William
Waterson, A. E.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Finney, Samuel
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Gee, Captain Robert
O'Grady, Captain James
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Gillis, William
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Glanville, Harold James'
Parry, Lieut. -Colonel Thomas Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Rendall, Atheistan



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
General Sir Ivor Philipps and


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Royce, William Stapleton
Colonel Sir Charles Yate


Hartshorn, Vernon




NOES.


Atkey, A. R.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Parker, James


Barlow, Sir Montague
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Purchase, H. G.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Randles, Sir John S.


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Rankin, Captain James S.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Chadwlck, Sir Robert
Hopkins, John W. W.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Howard, Major S. G.
Rodger, A. K.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hurd, Percy A.
Rose, Frank H.


Clay, Lieut. -Colonel H. H. Spender
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Cobb, Sir Cyril
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Colvin, Brig. -General Richard Beale
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Seager, Sir William


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lamber* Rt. Hon. George
Seddon, J. A.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Evans, Ernest
Lorden, John William
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Lynn, R. J.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Falcon, Captain Michael
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Manville, Edward
Stewart, Gershom


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Sturrock, J. Leng


Forrest, Walter
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Sugden, W. H.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. -Col. J. T. C.
Sutherland, Sir William


Gange, E. Stanley
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Ganzoni, Captain Sir F. J. C.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Glyn, Major Ralph
Neal, Arthur
Wallace, J.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Waring, Major Walter
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert



Whitla, Sir William
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavlstock)
Wise, Frederick
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 43.)

In Section forty-three of Army Act at end, add "and if such soldier does not receive the redress to which he may consider himself entitled he may require that his complaint be referred to a military court of appeal."— [General Sir Ivor Philipps.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The principle of this Amendment has been discussed with the others; doubtless the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not de-

sire to repeat the arguments, simply to take a decision.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

In view of what you have said, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, I simply formally move.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 54; Noes, 116.

Division No. 69.].
AYES.
[11.35 p.m.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayward, Major Evan
Spencer, George A.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hinds, John
Sugden, W. H.


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
Swan, J. E.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thomas, Brig. -Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davles, Major D. (Montgomery)
Klley, James D.
Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Finney, Samuel
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Waterson, A. E.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Gee, Captain Robert
Parry, Lieut. -Colonel Thomas Henry
Williams, Aneuriri (Durham, Consett)


Gillis, William
Rendall, Atheistan
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Glanville, Harold James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Gould, James C.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Royce, William Stapleton
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hartshorn, Vernon
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
General Sir Ivor Philipps and Sir John Butcher.


NOES.


Atkey, A. R.
Ganzoni, Captain Sir F. J. C.
Macleod, J. Mackintosh


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Macquisten, F. A.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Glyn, Major Ralph
Manville, Edward


Barnett, Major R. W.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. -Col. J. T. C.


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Berwick, Major G. O.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Neal, Arthur


Buckley, Lieut. -Colonel A.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Chadwick, Sir Robert
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Parker, James


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hood, Joseph
Pratt, John William


Cockerill, Brigadier-Geenral G. K.
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Purchase, H. G,


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rankin, Captain James S.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Howard, Major S. G.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hurd, Percy A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Roberts, Sir S, (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
James, Lieut. -Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Evans, Ernest
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Rodger, A. K.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Rose, Frank. H.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Ferrest, Walter
Lorden, John William
Seager, Sir William


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Seddon, J. A.


Gange, E. Stanley
Lynn, R. J.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Tryon, Major George Clement
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Steel, Major S. Strang
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Stephenson, Lieut. -Colonel H. K.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Wise, Frederick


Stewart, Ger shorn
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sturrock, J. Leng
Waring, Major Walter



Sutherland, Sir William
Whitla, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Townley, Maximilian G.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. McCurdy.


Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 44.)

In Section 44 of the Army Act (which relates to scale of punishment by courts-martial) after the word "flogging" in Subsection (5) thereof there shall be inserted the words "and other than personal restraint by being kept in irons or other fetters" and the words "and such field punishment shall be of the character of personal restraint or of hard labour" in the same Sub-section shall be omitted, and the words "and such field punishment may be of the character of hard labour" shall be inserted in lieu thereof"—[Major Hay-ward.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Major HAYWARD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I must apologise for not having placed the new Clause on the Paper. The Bill came on unexpectedly, and I had no opportunity of giving the necessary notice. I will now formally move the Second Reading without developing the arguments for it, excepting to say that the object of the Amendment is merely to abolish the objectionable and degrading features of what is known as Field Punishment No. 1. The merits of this case are well known to the Committee. It is another of those hardy annuals, and I sincerely trust that by accepting the proposal to-night the Government will make it unnecessary to bring it forward on any future occasion.

Sir R. SANDERS: In 1919 the then Secretary of State for War undertook that an inquiry should be held to obtain the opinion of the military authorities in various theatres on this subject. No one likes Field Punishment No. 1, and if it can be dispensed with everyone will be only too glad to get rid of it. This inquiry was instituted with a view to seeing whether any substitute could be devised for this form of punishment without impairing the means by which discipline is maintained and without leaving behind the danger of a more free infliction of the death penalty. The inquiry was held, and the consensus of opinion was in favour of the retention of the existing system. Sir Douglas Haig,
Sir William Robertson, and others of great experience, were in favour of its retention. The opinions of non-commissioned officers and men were reported by various commanders, and it appeared that on the whole the non-commissioned officers and older soldiers were in favour of its retention in the interests of discipline. This is endorsed by the Army and Air Force Acts Revision Committee. They say:
The Committee consider that the question of the retention or abolition of Field Punishment No. 1 is one depending mainly on whether any other punishment can be devised to take its place which is suitable and effective on active service. The views of Officers Commanding in various theatres of war were obtained by the Army Council. These strongly support the necessity of retaining Field Punishment No. 1, and this view is endorsed by the service members of the Committee. No suitable alternative punishment which has the support of Military and Air Force opinion has been suggested to the Committee. In these circumstances they do not feel that they are in a position to recommend the abolition of Field Punishment No. 1.
I will give one further opinion on it, and that is the opinion of General Mac-ready. In 1916, when he was Adjutant-General, he said:
Soldiers cannot be treated like civilians. On active service punishment should be short and sharp, and must not require for its infliction the withdrawal from the fighting line of more men than are absolutely necessary. The nature of the punishment must be such that the men on whom it is inflicted will return to the firing line with the least waste of time, and any question of substituting imprisonment or detention for a form of punishment which is physically disagreeable is impossible, for the reason that many men, even good characters, when they get war-weary, are ready to commit themselves with a view of getting into prison in order to get away from the field. The abolition of Field Punishment No. 1 would have disastrous and far-reaching consequences, and as a result calls for the death penalty would become more frequent.
A promise was made by the Secretary of State for War that this subject should be thoroughly inquired into. It has been thoroughly inquired into, and all those most competent to give an opinion say that, disagreeable and irksome and dis-
tasteful as this form of punishment is, to abolish it would only lead to a worse thing, and that would be of necessity the more frequent infliction of the death penalty. Therefore, I cannot accept the Clause.

Mr. T. SHAW: I shall vote for the Second Reading of this Clause. Only two arguments are used against it, the first being that, if this punishment were abolished, the death penalty would be inflicted, and the second that, if it were not inflicted, it would mean the withdrawal of more men from the actual fighting line than ought to be withdrawn. There is not a word of excuse for the humiliating, degrading exhibition; there is not a word of excuse for a punishment absolutely unfitted to any man with a spark of self-respect. During the War it was my lot to travel on very long journeys with men who had returned from the Front, and I heard their stories; and Field Punishment No. 1, if their stories were to be believed, was often inflicted for very minor offences. Men were strapped to wheels in all kinds of humiliating positions, or were manacled, for very small offences indeed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rot!"] I say that any man who believes that a fit punishment for a British soldier is to tie him to a wheel, is rotten himself. [An HON. MEMBER: "Very rotten!"]

Mr. J. JONES: Damned rotten!

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw that remark.

Division No. 70.].
AYES.
[11.53 p.m.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hinds, John
Sugden, W. H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hirst, G. H.
Swan, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Lunn, William
Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Morgan, Major O. Watts
Waring, Major Walter


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Waterson, A. E.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Finney, Samuel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Forrest, Walter
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Gillis, William
Rankin, Captain James S.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Glanville, Harold James
Rendall, Athelstan
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Royce, William Stapleton
Mr. Hayward and Mr. Thomas Shaw


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)



Hartshorn, Vernon
Spencer, George A.

Mr. JONES: I withdraw it. It is all very well. The brass hats can talk, and the tin hats, too.

Mr. SHAW: From conversations that I have had with private soldiers, many of them belonging to my own immediate family, who had seen this punishment inflicted, I could see that the effect on their minds was extremely bad. I noticed a very significant remark in the statement to which we have just listened. That was that the commissioned officers and the non-commissioned officers and the old type of soldier were apparently agreed that this punishment was essential. Not a word of the new type of soldier.

Sir R. SANDERS: What I said was the older men. I would ask the hon. Member, if he is quoting me, to quote me correctly.

Mr. SHAW: That rules out the new soldier. It is the same thing in effect. I suggest that a punishment which inflicts degradation on a man, which incites his comrades, is a bad punishment, and I also suggest there is something seriously wrong in the discipline of a force that requires a punishment of this kind. If we were savages, Red Indians, one could understand it; but we are supposed to be civilised Britons. I shall certainly vote for the Second Reading of this Clause, believing that a punishment of this character denotes a low state of civilisation, a bad state of discipline, and finally makes for inefficiency.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 106.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

CAPTIVE BIRDS SHOOTING (PROHIBITION) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Three Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.